KAILASH CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. CHAMAN LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the setting aside of orders (Judgments) of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 12-11-1982 and the learned Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 27-1-1983 by which orders both the courts below had directed the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 450.00 to each of the respondents I and 2 from the date of the application.

(2.) The case of the respondents was that the petitioner is their son and they are father and mother respectively of the petitioner Kailash Chandra Gupta, that such circumstances were created as to force them out of the house of the petitioner and they were as such forced to take refuge with their daughter in the house of their son-in-law, that they were unable to maintain themselves and in this manner the petitioner has neglected to maintain them even though he was obliged to do so under section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court of the first instance after receiving objections and after allowing parties to lead evidence and after hearing them accepted the contentions of the respondents herein and acted upon the evidence. The Court came to the conclusion that the applicant even though is possessed of sufficient means has neglected to maintain his father and mother who are unable to maintain themselves and allowed a monthly allowance of Rs. 450.00 to each one of the respondents and this was directed to be paid from the date when the application was made. The learned Sessions Judge while hearing the revision accepted the evidence and after acting upon the same has upheld the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

(3.) After giving my careful consideration to the arguments advanced, I may point out that normally this court would refuse to act to interfere under section 482 Cr.P.C. if what is sought to be achieved has been disallowed by the revisional court. In fact the object of section 397(3) Cr.P.C. is to prevent a multiple exercise of revisional power and to secure early finality of orders. A person aggrieved of an order can either invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this court or that of Sessions Court and once a forum is selected no further revision can be entertained. In fact, the learned counsel for the respondents' first objection was that this court under the circumstances of this case should refrain from interfering with the order under section 482 Cr.P.C. It is true that the power given to the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. is an exceptional one but to suggest that the court cannot interfere under this section in such matters is not correct. In fact, if the court does not act under this section it is only because of self-restraint the court has imposed upon itself but where the court finds it necessary to exercise its inherent power in order to secure the ends of justice there is no reason for the court no to act accordingly.