( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 94 of 2003 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 94 of 2003 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 94 of 2003 Mr Jaywant Pandurang Wadekar ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr Vinit Jain i/v Girish Kulkarni, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr S. S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. DATED : 28.04.2008. DATED : 28.04.2008. DATED : 28.04.2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. 2. Perused application and the material available on record. 3. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.2.2003 ( 2 ) passed in Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 2000 by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai confirming the judgment and order dated 4.7.2000 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, whereby the applicant-accused was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The factual matrix emerging from the record is that the applicant Jaywant Pandurang Wadkar, an artist of Marathi drama, got married to the complainant Ms Vijaya on 24.2.1986. This marriage was against the desire of parents of Jaywant, which, ultimately, resulted in displeasure of his family members. 5. The complainant, some time in the year 1987 delivered a baby boy. The complainant during this period came in contact with one Mrs Vidya Naik, a professor, serving in the Gokhale College, Borivali. He developed love affair with the said lady. This love affair of the accused with Mr Vidya developed in strained relationship between Jaywant and his wife - the complainant ( 3 ) Vijaya. 6. The complainant after having learnt about love affair between the said Vidya Naik and her husband started suffering torture at the hands of her husband - present applicant. The strain relationship went to the extent of pressurising the complainant Vijaya to file a divorce petition in the Family Court. The complainant having left with no option lodged a police complaint of domestic violence on 13-10-1993 against the applicant making serious allegations against the applicant-accused. 7. The said complaint was registered with L.T. Marg Police Station vide C.R. No. 161 of 1994 for having committed offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. against the applicant Jaywant, his brother - Mr Anil Pandurang Wadkar, sister-in-law - Mrs Ashiwini Anil Wadkar on 4.6.1994. 8. The charge-sheet was lodged after investigation in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade Mumbai against ( 4 ) the applicant-accused and others. 9. The learned Magistrate tried accused persons. He, after recording evidence, came to the conclusion that the complainant was being subjected to cruelty by her husband, present applicant-accused Jaywant. He proceeded to convict him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant carried appeal to the Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai. The Appellate Court after having heard both parties, discussed and appreciated the evidence brought on record, which can be seen from following extracted portion of the judgment. 10."Evidence of PW 1 Vijaya reveals substantial details of her love marriage with the appellant-accused Jaywant in March, 1986 and her life thereafter, she categorically asserted that one Prof. Vidya Naik was friendly to her husband and she had learnt that her husband was having affair with the said Vidya Naik. P.W.1 Vijaya further revealed an incident ( 5 ) of having come across the nomination done by her husband in the books of U.T.I. in the name of said Vidya Naik in August, 1991. She added that her husband had removed from her possession the letter of said nomination. These facts do find corroboration in the complaint Exh.P-1. 11."The fact of institution of a petition for divorce by the appellant-accused Jaywant Wadkar is also evident from the record, particularly, the evidence before the Court. According to P.W.1 Vijaya, the appellant-accused was pestering her for giving divorce. This clearly shows that the appellant - accused Jaywant had lost interest in preserving the marital ties between himself and the complainant Vijaya despite the fact that son Tanmay was born out of the wedlock. On this background, the role of Prof. Vidya Naik in the life of the complainant Vijaya assumes importance. 12."Further evidence of P.W.1 Vijaya and the evidence of P.W.4 Pramod Kandalgaonkar conclusively proves the birth certificate Exh.P-6. P.W.5 Mugatlal Shah related the facts from the record of Holy Spirit Hospital. According to him, one Smt Vidya Jaywant Wadkar delivered a female child on 2.5.2000 at Holy Spirit Hospital. He produced admission record Exh.P-8, delivery record Ex-P-9, case papers Ex-P-10 and discharge record Ex-P-11. In his cross-examination, he revealed that the record giving the name and address of the patient was being prepared as per the instructions of the patient or the person accompanying the patient, and there was no further verification of the said facts. 13."While appreciating this evidence, it must be borne in mind that what is being looked for in the evidence is whether the complainant Vijaya was subjected to cruelty i.e. any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as to cause grave injury ( 6 ) to the mental or physical well being of the complainant. Birth certificate Ex-P-6 reveals that a female child was born to a pair Vidya and Jaywant Wadkar on 8.5.2000. Note of information sent by Holy Spirit Hospital to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai further reveals the following data of the said pair... This material not only corroborates the fact of the complainant Vijaya legitimately believing the act of infidelity on the part of the appellant-accused Jaywant, but is also sufficient to read the reform wilful conduct on the part of the male partner so grave as to cause injury to the mental health of the female partner in the marriage unless there is evidence in rebuttal. In the instant case, it was incumbent upon the appellant accused Jaywant to have stepped into the witness box and adduced further evidence in rebuttal of the facts disclosed in the Birth certificate Ex-P-6 and the information furnished by Holy spirit Hospital vide Ex-P-12." 11. On the aforesaid factual backdrop, and the evidence on record and the appreciation done by the Trial Court, the applicant-accused came to be convicted. 12. Having examined entire material on record, one can reasonably come to the conclusion that the view taken by the Courts below are reasonable and possible view based on evidence available on record. ( 7 ) 13. The clinching evidence brought on record is that of birth certificate Ex-P-6, which reveals that the female child was born to Ms Vidya and Jaywant on 8.5.2000. The note of information sent by Holy Spirit Hospital to Municipal Corporation Greater Mumbai has confirmed extra marital relations between Jaywant and Ms Vidya Naik. 14. Considered in the above backdrop, it is not possible to hold that the allegations made by the complainant against the applicant-accused are false, frivolous or concocted. One can take a judicial note of the fact that when any person indulges in the extra marital relationship, consequential effect is always on the married life resulting in abnormal behaviour of the spouse. Considered from this angle, it is not possible to take view other than the view taken by the Courts below. 15. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Snehlata Vs. Kailash, Snehlata Vs. Kailash, Snehlata Vs. Kailash, reported in ( 8 ) 2008 ALLMR 131, 2008 ALLMR 131, 2008 ALLMR 131, wherein this Court was pleased to hold that birth certificate of daughter could not be relied upon as the same does not prove bigamous marriage under Section 494. The said judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Here the complainant is not trying to prove the bigamous marriage but she is trying to prove the reasons for having committed an offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. 16. At this juncture, it will also be relevant to notice the settled principles of law laying down the length and breadth of Revisional jurisdiction of Court which prevents me from reappreciating the evidence once again so as to take view, other than the view taken by the courts below since the view taken by the Courts below is concurrent, reasonable and possible view. I do not think reappreciation of evidence would be justified. 17. This Court not being a Court of appeal cannot substitute its own view in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revisional jurisdiction ( 9 ) is not only limited in scope but also it is discretionary. The Court interferes in the revisional jurisdiction only in exceptional cases of flagrant miscarriage of justice as held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. State of Rajasthan v. State of Rajasthan v. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895 Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895 Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. The case on hand does not fall in that category. Thus, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. In the result, the revision application is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE. JUDGE. JUDGE.