(1.) BY this application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant who is the husband of the second opposite party has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 18th August, 1977, of the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, directing the applicant to pay Rs. 100/- per month as maintenance from the date of the order to the wife, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as also the order dated 9th February, 1978, passed by the court of the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, dismissing the applicant husband's revision therefrom under Section 397 of the Code.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the second opposite party against the maintainability of the application on the ground that a second revision at the instance of the same party being barred by sub-section (3) of Section 397 and also by sub-section (3) of Section 399 of the Code, the applicant could not be allowed to circumvent those provisions by having resort to the inherent powers of this court under Section 482. Learned counsel relied on Amarnath v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185, and contended that the same principle which is applicable to interlocutory orders should be applied to a second revision. The Supreme Court laid it down in that case that a harmonious construction of Sections 397 and 482 would lead to the irresistible conclusions that where a particular order is expressly barred under section 397 (2) and cannot be a subject of revision by the High Court, them to such a case, provision of Section 482 would not apply. The reason given was that the inherent powers of the court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no express provision on the subject-matter and when there is an express provision barring a particular remedy, the court cannot resort to exercise the inherent powers; and it was held that, in view of the express bar under section 397 (2), against revision of an interlocutory order, the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 were not available to defeat that bar.
(3.) COMING to the merits of the application, inherent powers of this court ought to be used to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, "or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." The question is whether there has been any abuse of process of court or whether the impugned order, if allowed to stand, will occasion a failure of justice.