POORAN SINGH Vs. SABOBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this petition Under Section 482 Cr. P. C. lie in marrow campus. It appears that non-applicant Mst. Sabobai filed a petition Under Section 125 Cr. P. C. before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, alleging that she is a legally married wife of the present petitioner Pooran Singh. It is alleged that after marriage she remained with the petitioner as wife but she was illtreated. She thereafter left the house of her husband and went to village. Her husband did not go to take her back. The petition was contested on the ground that she was not legally wedded wife. No marriage however took place. He was married with one Smt. Bina and had three issues. There was a talk of marriage with the non-applicant Sabobai but the proposal was not accepted. Due to this enmity the present petition for maintenance was preferred. The learned Magistrate took evidence, heard the parties and allowed the petition by order dated 20. 11. 87. Feeling aggrieved Criminal Revision No. 18/87 was preferred which was dismissed after hearing the parties by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, camp at Goha. The present petition has been preferred against that order.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the opposite party. Learned Counsel for the opposite party raised a preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable in view of the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in 1993 AIR SC 1361 (Dharampal and Ors. v. Ramshri and Ors. ). He urged that there are two concurrent findings of the Courts below. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there must be a legal marriage and unless it is proved maintenance cannot be awarded Under Section 125 Cr. P. C. He contended that Sabobai, as required under law, has not proved her marriage with the petitioner. He also argued that the impugned order is not in accordance with the material on record and Court had known this fact that the marriage has not been proved and hence interference under inherent powers can be made. He also pointed out that certain documents have not been seen.

(3.) I have considered the contentions raised before me by the learned Counsel for the parties. It cannot be disputed that the learned Magistrate after considering the material on record allowed the petition and specifically held that the marriage had been proved. That order was confirmed in revision. In the aforesaid authority relied upon by the opposite party in Dharampal and Ors. v. Ramshri and Ors. , it has been specifically held "it is now well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. Hence the High Court had clearly erred in entertaining the second revision at the instance of first respondent. " In this view of the matter the petition Under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is not maintainable and I agree with the learned Counsel for the opposite party. Assuming for the same of argument that powers can be invoked, in that ease, I do not find any abuse of the process of the Court. There is a finding of fact of both the Courts below. Detailed finding need not be given. The learned Counsel for the revisionist relied on AIR 1988 SC 644 but the facts of this case are entirely different and do not apply to the present case. In view of what has been said above, I find no force in the revision. The revision petition is dismissed.