MIRAPA SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails the order dated 26-11-1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, in Crl. RP No.33 of 1999.

(2.) The respondents herein filed a petition seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC, in MC No.11 of 1998 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, S.Kota. The learned Magistrate after conducting enquiry directed that maintenance to be paid to the petitioner in MC No.11 of 1998 by the respondent therein, who is the petitioner herein. Having been aggrieved by the said order granting maintenance, the petitioner approached the Sessions Court as aforesaid in Crl. RP No.33 of 1999. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, found that there had been no specific finding in regard to neglect or refusal to maintain, which in his view gives necessary jurisdiction to the Court for awarding maintenance and, therefore, he allowed the revision petition and remitted the matter back to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, S.Kota, for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to both sides. Challenging the same invoking Section 482 Cr.PC, the petitioner filed the present application.

(3.) The only grievance of the petitioner, as can be seen from the contention of the learned Counsel, seems to be that the learned Additional Sessions Judge having observed in his order that nothing could be culled out from the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 as regards the essential finding of "neglect or refusal to maintain" ought not to have remitted the matter back for fresh disposal and ought to have proceeded to dispose of the revision petition by himself. The apprehension of the petitioner seems to be that under the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge the trial Court might permit the parties to adduce fresh evidence, which is otherwise not permissible. After having gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I do not think that there is any room for such apprehension. The order does not speak that the parties be permitted to adduce fresh evidence. On the other hand, the Court directed to dispose of the matter afresh on merits by giving specific finding as regards essential ingredients of "neglect or refusal to maintain", when the trial Court cannot travel beyond the scope of the order passed by the superior Court while remitting the matter back for fresh disposal.