SHIVAJI RAGHUNATH GAIKWAD Vs. JIJABAI SHIVAJI GAIKWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed by the husband challenging the concurrent orders passed by the two Courts below in proceedings arising out of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) The trial Magistrate granted Rs. 100/- per month by way of maintenance to the wife. The said order was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 15th September 1984. The husband was the revision petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He was unsuccessful. After he was unsuccessful before the trial Magistrate as well as before the revisional Court, he has filed the present writ petition challenging the said orders under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In the matters of maintenance, the litigants have been granted by the Parliament a remedy to have a statutory relief under section 125 of the Code and unsuccessful party in such a proceeding is provided with a revisional remedy and that remedy is complete. Under section 397 (3) of the Code, a further application by a person who has moved the revisional Court is entirely barred. In this connection, it may be useful to note that when the Parliament created the bar under section 397(3) in the matters of further applications to be prosecuted before the High Court, it was aware of the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution also. Article 227 itself does not vest any right in a person. It is a constitutional power of the High Court. It is a discretionary power with the High Court. It is not an appellate or a revisional power. It is a supervisory power and it is difficult that this power can be invoked except in exceptional circumstances when subordinate Courts and Tribunals, within their bounds and authority, have acted in contravention of some law or have violated some provision of law, which has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. When the Code of Criminal Procedure banned the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court, it would indeed require a very exceptional case under Article 227 to interfere in - the orders passed by the lower Court, Earlier, in Hemchandra v. Hemangi, I had an occasion to consider this aspect and I had at that time expressed that the High Court while exercising power under Article 227 at the instance of an unsuccessful revision, petitioner should observe some self-imposed limitation and self restraint and should not entertain petitions as a matter of course unless an exceptional ground is made out, otherwise power of superintendence would be meant for circumventing the State law. I am supported in this view by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh and another which my attention was invited by the learned advocate for respondent No. 1. The Supreme Court in that decision at page 385 observed. Where the statute (Criminal Procedure Code) banned the exercise of revisional powers by the High Court, it would indeed require very exceptional circumstances to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, since the power of superintendence was not meant to circumvent statutory law.