Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mast Ram vs Smt. Shanti Devi on 5 November, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002CRILJ1616
Author: M.R. Verma
Bench: M.R. Verma
ORDER M.R. Verma, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (here-after referred to as 'the Code') and Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 1-7-2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, whereby the order of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chopal dated 1-11-1999 granting maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month has been affirmed and the revision-petition preferred by the petitioner against the said order of the Judicial Magistrate has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chopal claiming maintenance from the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month on the grounds that the respondent who is married wife of the petitioner and have four surviving children out of the wedlock is being ill-treated by the petitioner and in the month of May, 1995 he gave her severe beatings, turned her out of the matrimonial house with warning not to return and thereafter the petitioner married one Satya on 18-1-1996. It is also claimed that the petitioner had refused to maintain the respondent who has no source of income and is unable to maintain herself.
3. The petitioner contested the petition wherein he took preliminary objections that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and that the respondent was estopped to file the petition because of her acts, conduct and mis-deeds. On merits, the allegations of ill-treatment, turning the respondent out of the house with the warning not to come back to her matrimonial house and the petitioner having contracted second marriage with said Satya, were denied. It was also claimed that the respondent is having handsome income from agriculture and horticulture and is a skilled tailor and her monthly income is more than Rs. 3,000/-.
4. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties in support of their rival claims, the learned trial Magistrate found the respondent entitled for maintenance and accordingly awarded monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- in favour of the respondent payable by the petitioner from the date of petition, i.e. 16-3-1995.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision-petition under Section 397/401 of the Code which was heard and decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla and was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence, this petition.
6. Since none put in appearance for the petitioner when this petition came up for hearing, therefore, I could not have the advantage of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the records.
7. As is evident from the petition itself, the petitioner intends to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code and Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the aid of Sections 397 and 401 of the Code. The petitioner having already availed himself of the remedy of criminal revision under Sections 397/401 of the Code is debarred from preferring a second revision in view of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code, therefore, the question arises whether there is anything in this petition which may render it maintainable under Section 482 of the Code and Article 227 of the Constitution ?
8. Be it stated that there are concurrent findings of two Courts below that the respondent does not possesses means maintain herself and that the petitioner is not maintaining her. Evidently, the merits of such findings cannot be gone into under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code and Article 227 of the Constitution which has a very narrow scope. The powers of this Court sought to be invoked, can be exercised only in the rarest of the rare cases where grave injustice is shown to have been caused and requires to be undone.
9. In fact there is nothing in the dispute and the impugned orders which may be called or termed as illegality which was resulted in gross injustice to the petitioner or which may call for interference of this Court to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice or to give effect to any order under the Code. Thus, there is no case to invoke the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code or/and Article 227 of the Constitution.
10. The present petition in fact is nothing more than a second revision-petition which is not maintainable in view of the pro-visions of Sub-section(2) of Section 397 of the Code.
11. As a result, this petition is dismissed.