SUBRAMANIAM Vs. VIJAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 10.10.2002 made in R.C.No.4 of 2002 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivaganga, thereby confirming the order dated 26.11.2001 made in M.C.No.21 of 1997 by the Curt of Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur.

(2.) Today, when the above matter came up for admission before this Court, in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate taking notice on behalf of the third respondent herein, it comes to be known that it is a maintenance petition filed by respondents 1 and 2, who are the mother and the minor daughter as against the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tirupathur, in consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and on a trial held, has ultimately arrived at granting a sum of Rs.300/= per month in favour of the second petitioner from the date of the petition, that was on 28.5.1997, as per M.C. No.21 of 1997 and on revision, the Court of Additional sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivaganga, has confirmed the said order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, thereby dismissing the revision filed before him, as a result of which, the petitioner has come forward to file the above petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Today, this Court, testifying the validity of the petitioner having come forward to file this petition, is attracted towards Section 397(3) and 399(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, wherein Section 397(3) recites as follows: 397. Calling for records to exercise of powers of revision:- (1) .... (2) .... (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertain by the other of them. Section 399(3) recites,