SYED IQBAL HUSSAIN Vs. SYED NASAMUNNISSA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband is the revision petitioner. His wife filed M.C. 41/83 in the court of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for maintenance u/S. 125, Cr.P.C. for her herself and her three minor children. The learned magistrate has awarded maintenance at Rs. 200.00 per month for the wife and Rs. 100.00 per month for each of the three children. The husband preferred Crl.R.C. 128/85 to this court and the maintenance was reduced to Rs. 125.00 per month for the wife while confirming the maintenance awarded to the children.

(2.) While so, the wife and children filed M.C. No. 60/89 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad u/S. 127, Cr.P.C. claiming enhancement of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month for each of them. The wife was divorced on 23-5-89. The learned magistrate has enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 300.00 per month for the wife from 27-7-88 to 23-5-89. So far as the minor children are concerned, the learned magistrate enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 100.00 Per month to Rs. 175.00 per month each from 27-7-88 to 23-5-91.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said decision, the husband has preferred this revision direct to the High Court. The learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the revision on the ground that the petitioner should have first preferred the revision to the Sessions Judge before approaching this Court. Section 397 Cr.P.C. confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court as well as the Sessions Judge in dealing with the revisions against the orders passed by any subordinate criminal court. Though the normal procedure which is adopted is that any person aggrieved by the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate must prefer revision to the Sessions Judge and then if he is aggrieved by the order file a revisions in the High Court, since S. 397, Cr.P.C. confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court also, I hold that the revision cannot be dismissed in limini on the ground that the revision filed in the High Court without exhausting the remedy before the Sessions Judge is not maintainable.