SRIDHAR RAO Vs. KAMAKSHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is to quash the order passed in M:C.No. 48/80 on the file of Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur as confirmed in Crl. R.P. No. 48/Si by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ehirn dt. 1-6-82. The 1st respondent is the wife of the petitioner. The Petitioner filed O.P. No. 28/72 on the fle of the court of the Subordinate Judge,Narsapuragftinst the 1st respondent under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights which was allowed on 13-6-1975. Since the 1st respondent did not join to live with the petitioner inspite of the notice dt. 14-7-75, he filed O.P.No. 34/77 on the file of Sub-court, Narsapur for dissolutiom of the marriage. The said O.P. was allowed on 11-7-80 holding that the 1st respondent was under the influence of her relaticbs and therefore, she was not prepared to join the petitioner. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed M.C. 48/80 on 21-8-80. under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance which was allowed by the Addl. Judl. First Cl. Magistrate, Narsapur and ordered a monthly allowance of Rs. 150/- towards maintenance to be effective from 21-8-80. On Revision the same was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence the Petition.

(2.) The contention of Sri. T. Veerabhadrayya, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when once the marriage was dissolved due to the fault of the wife on the ground that she refused to join her husband on restitution being ordered, she eannot claim maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr. P.C- Sri Venkata Sastry.the learned counsel for the respondets raised a preliminary objection viz., when once revisions! remedy is invoked against the order passed by the Magistrate before the Sessions Court the^petitioner cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. and so the petition filed herein cannot be adjudictcd by this court due to want of jurisdiction. The preliminary objection apparently is based upon Sec. 397 sub-clause 3f an application ucdtr this section has been made by any person either to theHighCourt or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be enttrtained by the other of them." Cr. P. C. as well as under Se.c. 482 Cr. P. C. and so the same be read: Section 482 Cr. P. C : - Saving of inherent powers of High Court:-

(3.) From the above it is fairly evident that it would be competent for this court to interfere in the exercise of its in herent powers with the orders passed by the Sessions Judge in Revision preferred against the orders of the Magistrate, provisions of the orders enacted in Sec. 397 (3) Cr. P. C. notwithstanding; provided however, this court is satisfied that interference is necessary to prevent abuse of process : of any court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The preliminary objection is, therefore, disposed of accordingly.