CHANDRIKA PRASAD PANDEY Vs. KANTI PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two matters can be conveniently disposed of together because they arise out of the same proceedings and others. Chandrika Prasad Pandey has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 3481 of 1987 praying that the sum of Rs. 300/- per month allowed by the Magistrate as maintenance allowance payable to Smt. Kanti Pandey, which order has been up-held in revision, should be quashed. Smt. Kanti Pandey has preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 4212/- saying that the sum of Rs. 300/- per month was in-adequate and it should be enhanced.

(2.) Sri L.P. Singh learned Counsel appears on behalf of Chandrika Prasad Pandey and Sir Viresh Misra represents cause of Smt. Kanti Pandey. Both learned Counsel have heard at length.

(3.) A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the parties about the maintainability of two petitions under Section 482 Cr P.C. on the ground that the revisional powers have already been exercise before the Sessions Judge. These petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as concurrent proceedings should not be maintained. Simultaneously they also argued that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may if so thought fit be exercised in order to do substantial justice between the parties and no useful purpose will be served if these petitions are disposed of only on that technicality. In view of the facts involved it is desirable to end the litigation between the parties finally and therefore the merits are being judged.