Y VENKATACHALAPATHI Vs. Y VENKATRAMANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the orders in Crl. Revision Case No. 18/93 on the file of the District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor, confirming the order of the Munsif Magistrate, Vayalpad in M.C. No. 3/91.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows: The petitioner herein is the husband of the 1st respondent herein. She filed a petition under Section 125 (1), Cr.P.C. in M.C.No. 3/91 for granting maintenance alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein, that she was subjected to cruelty, that she has been driven out of the house and that he married another lady and living with her. The petitioner resisted that application. He denied the factum of marriage with the 1st respondent. He contended that the 1st respondent filed the said petition at the instance of one Srihari, who is the husband of his sister, and against whom, his sister initiated maintenance proceedings, that he married one Tulasamma and he is living with her. He also pleaded that he has no capacity to pay the maintenance. He further pleaded that the 1st respondent is the concubine of his paternal uncle and that she is earning Rs. 25/- per day. To substantiate their respective contentions, on behalf of the wife, P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P-1 and P-2 were marked. On behalf of the husband, R.Ws. 1 to 7 were examined and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate held that the 1st respondent herein is the wife of the petitioner and that she is entitled for maintenance and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- per month towards her maintenance from the date of hisorder, dated 4-3-1993. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner-husband preferred a revision to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor in Cr.R.C.No. 18/93. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor by his order, dated 30-11-1994 confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the revision case. Aggrieved by that order, the husband-petitioner has come up with this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the order of the Dist. & Sessions Judge, confirming the order of the Magistrate granting maintenance to the 1st respondent herein.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that by virtue of Section 399 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, no second revision lies to the High Court against the order of the Sessions Judge passed in a revision case and that the order of the learned Sessions Judge has be come final. The learned Counsel for the respondent further contends that the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is also not maintainable as the order of the Sessions Judge in revision case has become final. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhurmpal and others vs. Smt. Ramsree and others and "Deepti Alias Arathi Rai vs. Akil Rai and others. In "Dharmpal and others vs. Smt. Ramsree and others (referred above), Their Lordships of Supreme Court in para No. 4 have laid down the law thus: