N M VELAYUDHAN Vs. P SUKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the respondent in MC 27 of 1970 of the District Magistrate's Court, Kottayam. That case was initiated by his wife, the respondent herein for maintenance for herself and her two children. Maintenance was allowed at the rate of Rs. 30/- for the respondent and Rs. 15/- each for the two children. While the above petition was pending, the present petitioner filed H.M.A. No. 91/71 before the Sub Court, Kottayam for restitution of conjugal rights against the present respondent. That petition was allowed on 30-1-74.

(2.) A preliminary objection is raised that the petition itself is not maintainable. It is argued that the petition is couched in such a way as to appear that it is under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereas it is really an application for invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court and as the learned Sessions Judge has already dismissed an application for revision filed by the petitioner, a second revision petition is barred both under S.397(3) and under S.399(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The contention, therefore, is that the present petition should be dismissed in limine.

(3.) The decisions of the High Courts are conflicting as to whether the inherent powers of the High Court can be invoked in cases where a revision petition to High Court is barred either under S.397(2) or under S.397(3) and S.399(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I need refer to the above decisions in view of two recent decisions of the Supreme Court dealing with the point.