RAKESH KUMAR SAXENA Vs. SADHNA SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition Under Section 482 is directed against the order dated 22-3-93 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Cr. Revision Petition Nos. 45/90 and 4/90.

(2.) IT appears that a petition Under Section 125 Cr. P. C. was moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate for maintenance of non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 claiming themselves to be wife and son respectively of applicant Rakesh Kumar Saxena. The petition was contested and was allowed by the learned Magistrate on 23-11-89. A sum of Rs. 300/- per month was awarded to the non-applicant No. 1 and Rs. 200/- per month to non-applicant No. 2 respectively. Both parties preferred revision petition. Revision Petition No. 4/90 was preferred by the present applicant Rakesh Kumar Saxena and non-applicants preferred Revision Petition No. 45/90. As they relate to the same case, they were heard together and decided on 22-3-93. The learned Revising Court dismissed the Revision Petition No. 4/90 of the present applicant and allowed Revision Petition No. 45/90 whereby the amount of maintenance awarded to the non-applicants was enhanced to Rs. 400/- so far as non-applicant No. 1, Smt. Sadhna Saxena was concerned and Rs. 300/- to non-applicant Ashish Saxena was concerned. Feeling aggrieved the present petition Under Section 482 has been preferred,

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the non-applicant raised a preliminary objection that the petition Under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is not maintainable because the revision petition against the order passed by the learned Magistrate allowing the maintenance was confirmed. The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the order passed by the learned Revising Court is two fold. Firstly, the order of maintenance was confirmed and secondly the amount was enhanced. In any case, the learned Counsel contended that the present petition is maintainable as the maintenance was enhanced. He also contended that the learned Revising Court did not give reasons for enhancing the maintenance as well as the reason for awarding the maintenance from the date of the petition and as such the impugned order is illegal and interference Under Section 482 Cr. P. C, can be made. The learned Counsel for the non-applicant, on the other hand, contended that the learned Revising Court in para 13 of his order has given reasons for enhancement. There is no abuse of process of Court and as such the inherent powers cannot be exercised.