Kerala High Court
T.K. Ramakrishnan vs C.N. Subadra on 30 May, 2007
Author: R.Basant
Bench: R.Basant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 262 of 2007()
1. T.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.N. SUBADRA, D/O.NARAYANAN,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.ASHOKAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :30/05/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.262 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of May 2007
O R D E R
When should this court agree to entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C favourably? Can even technicality be pressed into service to advance the interests of justice? Unless the conscience of the court is satisfied that the interests of justice, as objectively perceived by the court, are affected, is the court obliged to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction? These thoughts vex this court in this case.
2. The petitioner has suffered an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C to pay maintenance @ Rs.800/- per month to the claimant, allegedly his wife. The claimant asserted that on 16/09/1979, in accordance with customary rites, the parties have entered valid matrimony. They allegedly lived together as man and wife. There was estrangement later and in 2003 the claimant/wife came to the learned Magistrate with a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
3. The husband admitted co-habitation for a long period of time but contended that it was not co-habitation as legally Crl.M.C.No.262/07 2 married spouses. He was married even earlier in 1966. He had a child in such relationship. As early as in 1980, a claim was made by the said wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C and maintenance was granted to her in the 1980 claim. The claimant was a younger relative of the petitioner who lived in his house and helped him in domestic chores. There was no marriage at all.
4. The parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant examined herself as PW1 and a witness to the alleged marriage as PW2. Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. They include ration card, electoral card etc. to show that the claimant and the petitioner were co-habiting as husband and wife. The petitioner herein examined CPW1 to 3. CPW1 is the petitioner herein.
CPW3 is his alleged first wife and CPW2 is a woman examined to prove the said earlier marriage. Exts.D1 to D7 were marked.
Exts.D1 and D2 are documents to indicate that the petitioner was shown as the father of the child born to CPW3 in the school documents. Exts.D3 to D7 reveal an attempt to show the physical ailments of the petitioner herein.
5. The learned Magistrate on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the Crl.M.C.No.262/07 3 solemnisation of a valid marriage between the claimant and the petitioner has been satisfactorily established and accordingly proceeded to pass the impugned order. The learned Sessions Judge concurred with the conclusions of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the revision.
6. A second revision petition is expressly barred under the provisions of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C and that explains why the petitioner has entered this court through the door of Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders are so grossly erroneous and do lead to failure of justice that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C deserve to be invoked notwithstanding the bar under Section 397(3). On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has lost his laborious legal battle for the sole reason that he was not able to produce the earlier order passed by the Magistrate accepting CPW3's claim to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The counsel contends that in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case, a copy of that order has been produced and that would show unmistakably that there was an earlier marriage between CPW1 and CPW3 knocking the bottom out of the case of the claimant that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner.
Crl.M.C.No.262/07 4Contentions are also raised that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. Thus the planks of challenge are:
(i) The finding regarding existence of a legal marriage between the claimant and the petitioner is perverse and
(ii) The quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive.
7. I must at the very outset remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is an extraordinary inherent jurisdiction.
The mantra which this court ought to follow while considering whether such powers ought to be invoked or not is whether there is abuse of the process of the court or whether failure or miscarriage of justice has resulted. If and only if this test is satisfied, will this court choose to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such power is awesome, wide and sweeping in its scope and amplitude. But it is trite that any and every error committed by a subordinate court in law or on facts cannot ipso facto persuade this court to invoke such residual jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to act in aid of justice. Even wrong orders may, at times not disturb justice in facts of the case. In a situation where proceedings are specifically barred as per the provisions of the code, compelling reasons must be shown to Crl.M.C.No.262/07 5 exist to persuade the court to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. It is trite that even ignoring the specific stipulations of law, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked in aid of justice. The law has been well summarized in the statement that the interests of justice may, at times transcend the interests of mere law and in such circumstances, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be held to be fettered.
8. I find absolutely no justifiable reasons advanced to explain why the maintenance order granted to CPW3 earlier by the court was not produced before the courts below. The scandalous delay in the judicial process is certainly attributable in part to the unrestrained yearning of the courts to do substantive justice. In life one does not get an opportunity to set the clock back and start the game afresh. What life and divine or Nature's justice cannot offer, litigation cannot obviously aspire to. The impression that any and every error or inadequacy committed in the conduct of the case can be rectified later and courts in their indulgence and anxiety to do justice would permit the parties to correct their errors, set the clock back and proceed afresh has certainly contributed in no mean measure to the scandalous delay in the judicial process. I am, in these Crl.M.C.No.262/07 6 circumstances, satisfied that the subsequent production of the most vital document belatedly without any satisfactory explanation cannot be accepted and cannot enter the judicial mind as a valid reason to overturn the verdict and set the clock back by granting a remand.
9. It is not as though the interests of justice would fail if the impugned order is not reversed. The nature of the jurisdiction of the criminal court under Section 125 Cr.P.C is well laid down. Prevention of vagrancy is the concern and brief of the criminal court in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. A criminal court is not jurisdictionally competent to make final and authentic pronouncements on the disputed status of parties.
That jurisdiction rightly vests in civil courts. A person who has suffered an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C can certainly get the cloud on his status removed by approaching the civil court and getting appropriate declaration. I refer to this aspect only to note that the rights of the petitioner or CPW3 or the child born in such alleged matrimony, if genuine, will remain unaffected if the petitioner or they would go to a civil court and seek appropriate declaration. I satisfy myself that the impugned order does not finally result in any miscarriage of justice.
Crl.M.C.No.262/07 710. Coming to the question of failure and miscarriage of justice, it is not disputed that the contestants have been living together under the same roof for a long long period of time. The convenient excuse offered that it was not the relationship of a man and woman but only a master and servant does not carry conviction and a prudent mind cannot obviously swallow the same without tons of salt. The courts below, according to me, were absolutely correct in coming to the concurrent conclusion that the contestants shared the relationship of matrimony and not anything else. The materials available before the courts below convincingly point to the correctness and acceptability of that finding of fact. That finding of fact, I do find, advances the interests of justice eminently and does not result in any miscarriage of justice. The finding regarding existence of marriage between the contestants does not, therefore, at all warrant interference by invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction.
11. There are indications to show that the petitioner has some ailment. But the materials available clearly show that the direction to pay an amount of Rs.800/- per month from the date of the petition is consistent with the materials available about Crl.M.C.No.262/07 8 the needs of the claimant and the means of the petitioner. That finding also does not, in these circumstances, warrant interference.
12. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed.
13. I note that when the matter came up for admission on 02/02/2007, an erroneous order was passed by this court that the matter shall stand admitted and notice shall be issued subject to condition of deposit of part of the amount. That order obviously is incorrect and I am satisfied that the matter deserves consideration on merits. That is why I have proceeded to consider the claim in detail notwithstanding such order dated 02/02/2007.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.262/07 9 Crl.M.C.No.262/07 10 R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007