Dismissed

Manirul Ali v. Firdoja Begum and Anr.

Gauhati HC16 Mar 2022Crl.Pet./90/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a revision petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC enhanced to Rs.12,000/month. The petitioner argued for an exception to the ban on second revisions. The court found the lower courts reasoned well and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed finding it devoid of merit.

Manirul Ali Vs Firdoja Begum and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010012992020

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Pet./90/2020

¶5

MANIRUL ALI

¶6

S/O TAZEM ALI, R/O VILL-PAROURA GAON, P.O.-SASHAR GAON, P.S.FAKIRAGRAM, DIST-KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783345

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

FIRDOJA BEGUM AND ANR.

¶9

W/O MANIRUL ALI, D/O MAHMAD ALI, R/O VILL-BHASANI GAON, P.O.LAKHIGANJ, P.S.-BILASIPARA, DIST-DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783370

¶10

2:MASUDA BEGUM (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER-FIRDOJA BEGUM R/O VILL-BHASANI GAON P.O.-LAKHIGANJ P.S.-BILASIPARA DIST-DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78337

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D C C PHUKAN

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MS. M BARMAN

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶15

ORDER

¶16

16.03.2022

¶17

Heard Mr. D.C. C Phukan, learned counsel representing the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶18

This is an application under Section 482 of the CrPC challenging the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilasipara in Criminal Revision Case No. 07/2019.

¶19

The first respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC seeking monthly maintenance for her as well as for her minor child. The court initially allowed a total monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/-. Thereafter, on different occasions, the monthly maintenance was enhanced. Finally, the maintenance was enhanced to Rs.12,000/- per month. The petitioner became aggrieved by the said order and filed a revision petition under Section 397 of the CrPC in the court of sessions. The revisional court agreed with the decision of the trial court and dismissed the revision petition.

¶20

For the aforesaid reasons, the present revision petition has been filed.

¶21

Section 397 (3) of the CrPC prohibits filing of a second revision petition. Mr. Phukan submits that on certain special occasions the power under Section 482 of the CrPC can be used by the high court.

¶22

In order to buttress his argument, Mr. Phukan has relied upon the two decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in Shakuntala Devi and others v. Chamru Mahto and others, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 310 and Surya Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 14 SCC 222.

¶23

Paragraph 24 of Shakuntala Devi (supra) is quoted as under:-

¶24

“ 24. It is well settled that the object of the introduction of sub-section (3) in Section 397 was to prevent a second revision so as to avoid frivolous litigation, but, at the same time, the

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

doors to the High Court to a litigant who had lost before the Sessions Judge were not completely closed and in special cases the bar under Section 397(3) could be lifted. In other words, the power of the High Court to entertain a petition under Section 482, was not subject to the prohibition under sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the Code, and was capable of being invoked in appropriate cases. Mr Sanyal's contention that there was a complete bar under Section 397(3) of the Code debarring the High Court from entertaining an application under Section 482 thereof does not, therefore, commend itself to us.”

¶27

Paragraph 20 of Surya Baksh Singh (supra) is quoted as under:

¶28

“ 20. A three-Judge Bench clarified in Krishnan v. Krishnaveni [(1997) 4 SCC 241 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 544] that although a second revision before the High Court after dismissal of the first one by the Court of Session is barred by Section 397(3), the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 are nevertheless available albeit with restraint so as to avoid needless multiplicity of the proceedings. This Court had opined that: (SCC p. 247, paras 8-9)

¶29

“8. … when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities….

¶30

The inherent power of the High Court is not one conferred by the Code but one which the High Court already has in it and [it] is preserved by the Code.”

¶31

On the other hand, Mr. Islam has submitted that a second revision petition under the guise of Section 482 of the CrPC is not maintainable in law. Mr. Islam has clarified that the legislative intent behind these two provisions are absolutely different. The learned counsel Mr. Islam has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court that was delivered in Deepti alias Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai and ors, reported in (1995) 5 SCC 751. In the said judgment, it has been stated that a second revision petition after the dismissal of the first one by the Sessions Court is not maintainable before the High Court and in such a case the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC cannot be utilized for exercising power which are expressly barred by the Code.

¶32

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides.

¶33

The power under Section 482 of the CrPC is a supervisory power of the High Court. In

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

Surya Baksh Singh (supra), the Supreme Court has held that under the given circumstances the power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised with restrained so as to avoid needless multiplicity of the proceedings. In Shakuntala Devi (supra), the Supreme Court has held that in some special cases the power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by the High Court under the given facts and circumstances.

¶36

In the case in hand, the petitioner earns a salary of more than Rs.56,000/- per month. The first respondent has a 10 (ten) years old child. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that he has re-married and now has children. So, he has to look after his second wife and children apart from his parents.

¶37

I have gone through the impugned judgment. This court is of the opinion that the trial court judgment as well as the impugned judgment are well reasoned ones. Therefore, this court does not find any special reason to invoke the provision under Section 482 CrPC. Hence, the present revision petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Manirul Ali v. Firdoja Begum and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manirul Ali v. Firdoja Begum and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imam Uddin Vs the State of Assam

Monoranjan How Bora and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Chand Miya Ahmed Vs the State of Assam

Pradip Chakroborty Vs Ratan Chakroborty and 3 Ors.

Rina Bhattacharyya and 2 Ors. Vs Tileswar Bhuyan

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Md. Khalil Ali and 3 Ors.