Under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the Court held that a second revision after dismissal by the Sessions Court is barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. The petition to quash maintenance orders was dismissed for lack of merit and absence of grounds showing misuse of process.
The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is dismissed being devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No.M-36917 of 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.M-36917 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.02.2011
Lekh Raj
....Petitioner
Versus
Parkash Rani and another
...Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present:Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate for respondent No.2.
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the order dated 22.04.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa and for quashing the order dated 05.09.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa.
The respondent No.1 is wife of the petitioner and respondent No.2 is their son. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa vide his order dated 22.04.2008 granted maintenance of 2,000/- to respondent No.1 and 500/- to both the minor children per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Both the parties preferred revision. The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner and allowed the revision petition filed by the
2
Crl. Misc. No.M-36917 of 2009
respondents and, accordingly, enhanced the amount payable to the wife from 2,000/- to 4,000/- and 500/- to 1000/- for both the children. The said judgment has been challenged by way of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C by raising two fold arguments :-
Firstly, the respondent had moved an application for maintenance only on behalf of herself and one minor child, whereas, the second son was still living with his father i.e the petitioner.
Secondly, the Courts have wrongly come to the conclusion that the petitioner is running a dairy and is the owner of the land.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Krishnan and another vs. Krishnaveni and another reported as 1997(4) Supreme Court Cases 241 held that second revision before the High Court after dismissal of first one by the Court of Sessions is barred under Section 397(3).
Admittedly, the revision petition has been dismissed. The second revision is barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. The present petition is, therefore, nothing but second revision under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. No doubt, it is well settled principle of law that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised even if the revision has been dismissed, however, the same is to be exercised sparingly and only to stop the perpetuating of injustice or in case of misuse of the process of law. No such ground has been pointed out in the present case which may enable this Court to come to the conclusion that the said grant of maintenance is misuse of process of law or any injustice has been caused. Hence, the discretionary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked in the facts of the present case when the revision petition already stands dismissed.
Even on merits, the petitioner has admitted that he is one of the owners and co-sharer in the land along with his other brothers. The finding has been duly recorded that the petitioner is a healthy and able-
Crl. Misc. No.M-36917 of 2009
3
bodied person. He is running a dairy and also owner of the land. A total amount of ` 5,000/- between three persons is the barest minimum required to meet daily needs.
The fact that the second son was not a party and still ` 500/have been granted, has been clarified by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa vide his order dated 05.09.2009 as under :-
“ It is immaterial that Rinku was not impleaded as petitioner through his mother Smt. Parkash Rani and not made the prayer because he is in the custody of his mother Smt. Parkash Rani. In view of the facts and pecuniary circumstances, his mother Smt. Parkash Rani on behalf of him should not have asked to file another application for her minor child and thus it is immaterial that application for amendment of the petition has not been disposed of. Moreover also it will be injustice to minor and against the spirit of the Section 125 Cr.P.C to ask a minor at this stage to file the fresh petition or remanding the case for disposal of the application for amendment of plaint as minor is already struggling for maintenance.”
In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed being
devoid of merit.
23.02.2011 gurpreet
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a second revision after dismissal by the Sessions Court can be maintained under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash maintenance orders.
Whether the maintenance order should be quashed because the second son was not impleaded as a petitioner.
Whether the finding of the petitioner running a dairy and owning land was erroneous.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krishnan and another vs. Krishnaveni and anotherReferred¶26
Krishnan and another vs. Krishnaveni and another reported as 1997(4) Supreme Court Cases 241
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Lekh Raj
Parkash Rani
Second Son
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
