KELAPPAN Vs. POOTHILATTE KALYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was ordered by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Quilandy in M.C. 77 of 1987 to pay maintenance to his wife and children. He challenged it filing a revision before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The Sessions Judge held that there is absolutely no reason to differ from the view taken by the Trial Court regarding the maintenance awarded to his wife and children. Petitioner challenges it under S.482 of the Cr. P. C. on the ground that the entire reasoning of the Sessions Judge is faulty and illegal.

(2.) S.482 of the Cr. P.C. is akin to S.151 C.P.C. but with a difference that the High Court alone is having inherent powers under the former Code. S.482 is intended to meet situation where the High Court can interfere to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. The powers can also be exercised if it is found necessary to give effect to any order under the Code. But the essential pre-requisite for invocation of the section are :

(3.) Though terms of S.482 are of wider amplitude, it has to be borne in mind that the powers cannot be applied to a fact situation where a Court has come to a finding on appreciation of evidence. Certainly S.482 cannot be invoked to reopen a finding of fact. The section does not enable the High Court to exercise the inherent powers unless it is found absolutely necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.