VARRE SATYAVATI Vs. VARRE VENKATESWAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed by the wife whose application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC to restore M.C.No.6 of 1989, which was dismissed for default, was dismissed.

(2.) The short facts necessary for decision of this revision are as follows: The present revision petitioner Smt. Varre Satyavathi alias Satyamani filed M.C. No.6 of 1989 against her husband V. Venkateswara Rao alias Pedakapu. On the ground that she was not diligently pursuing the case and on the ground that she failed to produce witnesses and as she was absent on 6-9-1989, M.C. No.6 of 1989 was dismiseed. The revision Petitioner filed Crl.M.P.S.R. No.1327 of 1989 subsequently under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC seeking the relief to set aside the dismissal order passed on 6-9-1989 in M.C. No.6 of 1989 and to restore the maintenance case to file. On the simple ground that a petition under Order 9 RuIe9CPCdoes not lie with regard to criminal proceedings filed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. the petition was rejected. That order of rejection is now challenged.

(3.) It is perfectly clear that the provisions of CPC are not applicable with regard to the matters which are governed by the Criminal Procedure Code. Though Chapter IX of the Criminal Procedure Code is in the nature of quasi-civil or quasi-criminal proceedings, Courts have held that Chapter IX constitutes a code in itself. There is absolutely no provision by which the provisions of CPC are made applicable to proceedings under this Chapter. In this view of the matter, the order of the Magistrate rejecting the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC is perfectly correct.