Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Valati Bhaskar, R.R.Dist. vs Valathi Pranava Sruthi, Prakasam Dist. ... on 27 August, 2020
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3540 OF 2015
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/husband against the docket order, dated 19.12.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.48 of 2014 in CRP.No.30 of 2011 passed by learned VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Markapuram, Prakasam District allowing the said petition and incorporating the word 'each' after the words petitioners 2 and 3 in para No.11 of the order in CRP.No.30 of 2011.
2. The factual matrix of the case in nutshell is thus. The 1st and 2nd respondents herein are the daughters of the petitioner. Themselves and their mother Valatati Shobha Sireesha Sasikala filed M.C.No.3 of 2008 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Giddaluru, claiming maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to the mother and Rs.2000/- each to the two minor daughters. The present petitioner who is the respondent therein contested the said M.C and after enquiry the trial court dismissed the claim petition of the mother but allowed the claim of two minor daughters and directed the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.1500/- per month to each of them towards maintenance. Aggrieved, the petitioner herein filed CRP.No.30 of 2011 before the Court of VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Markapuram and the said court in its order dated 23.01.2012 reduced the maintenance amount of the daughters from Rs.1500/- to Rs.1000/- per month from the date of petition. The operative portion of the order reads as follows.
2 UDPR, J CRL.P.No.3540 of 2015
11. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed modifying the order passed in M.C.3/2008, dt.16-8-2011 on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Giddalur reducing the maintenance awarded to petitioners 2 and 3 to Rs.1000/- per month from the date of petition. This petition is ordered accordingly.
(a) Thereafter, the respondents herein filed Crl.M.P.No.48 of 2014 under Section 362 r/w.Sec.400 of Cr.P.C on the ground that in the operative portion of the order in CRP.No.30 of 2011 the word 'each' was missing after the words petitioner 2 and 3 and such omission was only a clerical mistake by oversight while typing the order and therefore the word 'each' may be inserted after the words petitioners 2 and 3 so as to enable each daughter to claim Rs.1000/-.
The Lower Revisional court allowed the petition on 19.12.2014 and accordingly inserted the word 'each' after the words petitioners 2 and 3 in para No.11 of its order. The said order is now being impugned by the petitioner herein in the instant Criminal Petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri V. Eswaraiah - Chowdary and Public Prosecutor representing respondents.
4. The main plank of argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that after passing of the order in CRP.No.30 of 2011, the Lower Revisional Court became factious officio and thus it has no right to review its own order. He would argue that Section 362 of Cr.P.C is clear to the effect that a Court shall not alter or review its judgment except a clerical or arithmetical error. Learned counsel vehemently argued that adding of the word 'each' is not a mere clerical or arithmetical error as it was not an accidental omission at the time of 3 UDPR, J CRL.P.No.3540 of 2015 delivering the order at first instance. He would submit that considering the financial constraints of the petitioner herein, the Lower Revisional court has rightly reduced the maintenance awarded by the trial court for Rs.1500/- per month to each of the petitioners to Rs.1000/- to both the daughters together. By a subsequent insertion of a word 'each', the petitioner herein is forced to pay an extra amount of Rs.1000/- per every month which was not the intendment of the court at the first instance. He would thus argue that the innocuous adding of the word 'each' has drastic repercussion, casting an additional burden on the petitioner herein and above all, goes beyond the power of the Lower Court.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor argued that insertion of the word 'each' does not amount to review of the earlier order.
6. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the Criminal Petition to allow?
7. POINT: I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. The main contention of the petitioner is that the insertion of the word 'each' after the words petitioners 2 and 3 in para No.11 of the order in CRP.No.30 of 2011 tantamounts to exercising review power by the Lower Court against which there is a clear embargo in the form of Section 362 of Cr.P.C. The said section reads thus.
4 UDPR, J CRL.P.No.3540 of 2015
362. Court not to alter judgment.-- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.
8. In view of the above provision, the crucial question is whether the insertion of the word 'each' as stated supra is only a correction of a clerical or arithmetical error that crept in the original order or does it tantamount to exercising review power by the Lower Court. On a careful scrutiny of the order in CRP.No.30 of 2011 passed by learned VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Markapuram, I am of the considered view that the insertion of the word 'each' is only clarifying the original order and rectifying the clerical error crept at the initial stage.
Admittedly, the trial court granted Rs.1500/- each per month to the minor daughters i.e., 1st and 2nd respondents herein. Assuming the petitioner's argument is correct and the Revisional Court wanted to reduce the minors amount of Rs.1500/- per month to each petitioner to Rs.1000/- per month to both of them together, in such an event, the Revisional Court ought to have specified the share of each petitioner out of Rs.1000/-. However, in original order such division was not made between the petitioners 2 and 3 by the Lower Court. It indicates that the lower Revisional Court had not contemplated to award a lump sum of Rs.1000/- per month to both the minor daughters together. If such were the intention of the Court, running the risk of pleonasm, it would have made a division of Rs.1000/- between the two daughters which it did not do. Therefore, it goes without saying 5 UDPR, J CRL.P.No.3540 of 2015 that the Lower Court wanted to reduce the maintenance amount from Rs.1500/- to Rs.1000/- to each daughter but by mistake it did not mention the word 'each' after the words petitioners 2 and 3 in para No.11.
9. In my considered view, such a folly can be treated as purely a clerical error on the part of the Lower Court. Therefore, on the petition being filed by the respondents herein, the Lower Revisional Court by exercising the power under Section 362 of Cr.P.C rectified the aforesaid clerical error by inserting the word 'each'. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. I find no merits in the Criminal Petition.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications, if any pending for consideration, shall stand closed.
___________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 27.08.2020 MS