Chattisgarh High Court
Sushila @ Chameli And Anr. vs Santram Sahu on 6 January, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(1)MPHT101(CG)
ORDER
1. I.A. No. 4530/2003 for urgent hearing is allowed.
Heard.
2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC has been filed against the order dated 28-3-2003 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh. The applicant had filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.PC. The Trial Court passed the order dated 29-4-2002 for grant of maintenance to applicants at the rate of Rs. 500/- each per month. Against the said order, the applicants filed revision for enhancement whereas the non-applicant husband Santram also filed a revision against the same order for setting aside the order of grant of maintenance. Both these revisions were pending in the Court of IV Additional sessions Judge. The Court having noted that since both the revisions arise out of the same order, they have to be heard analogously. The Court requested to the Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants to take notice of the revision of other side. It is stated that the Counsel declined to take notice on the ground that he has no instruction. The Court therefore, requested the Counsel to keep the party present so that there may be no delay. Here it will be appropriate to reproduce the entire order passed by the Court:--
iqujh{k.kdrkZ }kjk Jh ch-,y- Mulsuk vf/k-
mifLFkr izR;FkhZ }kjk Jh fot; ljkQ vf/koäk mifLFkr A iqujh{k.kdrkZ us ftl vkns'k dk iqujh{k.k fd;k gS mlh vkns'k ds fo:) izR;FkhZ larjke lkgw ds }kjk Hkh iqujh{k.k fd;k gS ftldh uksfVl ysus ds fy, iqujh{k.kdrkZ ds vf/koäk Jh Mulsuk dks cksys tkus ij mUgksaus ekSf[kd O;ä fd;k fd mls i{kdkj dh vksj ls iSjoh gsrq dksbZ lwpuk izkIr ugha gS mijksä ifjfLFkfr esa izdj.k esa dksbZ foyac u gks bl mís'; ls iqujh{k.kdrkZ ds vf/koäk dks vkns'k fd;k tkrk gS vkxkeh fnukad dks iqujh{k.kdrkZ dks U;k;ky; esa gkftj j[ksa A rkfd mls uksfVl rkfey fd;k tk lds A okLrs vfUre rdZ gsrq A fnukad 14&4&2002 ¼,-,y- Mgfj;k½ prqFkZ vij l= U;k;k/kh'k ¼Qk-Vs-dks-½ jk;x<+ A
3. Against the above order, the applicants have approached this Court. Here Sub-section (2) of Section 401 of Cr.PC is relevant and quoted below:--
"401. High Court's power of revision.-- (1) *** *** *** (2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.
(3) *** *** *** *** *** (4) *** *** *** *** ***"
Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that there is abuse of process and mis-carriage of justice. He also submitted that provisions of Section 62 of Cr.PC would be applicable. Section 62 of Cr.PC relates to summons, which is quoted below :--
"62. Summons how served.-- (1) Every summons shall be served by a Police Officer, or subject to such rules as the state Government may make in this behalf, by an officer of the Court issuing it or other public servant.
(2) The summons shall, if practicable, be served personally on the person summoned, by delivering or tendering to him one of the duplicates of the summons.
(3) Every person on whom a summon is so served shall, if so required by the Service Officer, sign a receipt therefore on the back of the other duplicate."
4. Section 482 of Cr.PC relates to saving of inherent powers of High Court. The present matter relates to a revision, which has been filed by the applicants against the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 29-4-2002. Against the same order the respondent also filed a revision for setting aside the order. The duty of the Counsel is to assist the Court and not to put obstructions. Counsel being officer of the Court has to assist in quick disposal of the case specially when the matter relates to grant of maintenance. By adopting delaying tactics, it is the party, which is going to suffer. Both the revisions are such which are required to be heard simultaneously. Learned Sessions Court, being conscious of the fact, made request to the Counsel to take notice and upon such request being made, the oral reply given was that he has no instruction. Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that probably the applicants' Counsel before the Court below thought that the applicants may have another Counsel for opposing the revision of the husband. Prim a facie it is difficult to appreciate that a lady who has come to Court for grant of maintenance would be able to afford two Counsel to be engaged. Even assuming that it might be possible, the Rcvisional Court directed the Counsel to keep present the party so that she may be heard or Counsel whosoever is instructed by her may be heard. Matters regarding grant of maintenance or otherwise require early disposal and for that parties have to be co-operative and so also Bar Members, especially in matters of family dispute.
5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record, in the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the learned Sessions Court is with an object to get the matter, which is a family dispute, decided at the earliest and on reading of the entire order it can not be said that the Court has acted against the interest of the applicants.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no merit in the petition and as such the same is dismissed.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 4530/2003 stands disposed of.