MANGLA DEVI Vs. BALURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 6. 1. 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa, District Neemuch (M. P.) in Criminal Revision No. 135/02.

(2.) THE applicant/wife filed an application under Section 125 of Cr. P. C, praying for award of Rs. 500 per month as the maintenance allowance for herself and Rs. 1,500 for her children. Her application was registered as M. Cr. C. No. 7/90 in the Court of JMFC, Manasa, District Neemuch. Non-applicant opposed the application of the applicant. After trial, the learned Magistrate by order dated 5. 8. 2002 allowed the application in part and directed the non-applicant to pay Rs. 500 per month for maintenance of the applicant alone. The learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for granting maintenance for the children. The present applicant preferred a revision against the order which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 102/02. Non-applicant also preferred a revision against the order granting the maintenance to the applicant. His revision was registered as Criminal Revision No. 135/02. Both these revisions were heard and decided by the common order dated 6. 1. 2004 by Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa, District Neemuch. By the said order the learned ASJ rejected Criminal Revision No. 102/02 filed by the applicant/ wife, while he allowed Criminal Revision No. 135/02 filed by non-applicant/ husband and quashed the part of the order passed by the learned JMFC granting Rs. 500 per month as maintenance to the applicant. The applicant has filed this revision against that part of order which has allowed the Criminal Revision No. 135/02 and rejected the application of the applicant preferred under Section 125 of Cr. P. C.

(3.) THE non-applicant has vehemently argued that this revision is not tenable even as it is the second revision and the bar under Section 397 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code is applicable. This submission of non-applicant cannot be accepted. The learned ASJ has decided both the revisions, one filed by applicant/ wife and other filed by non-applicant/husband by the common order dated 6. 1. 2004. The learned ASJ has rejected the Criminal Revision No. 102/02 filed by applicant/wife. Therefore, applicant cannot file the revision against the order dismissing her revision and bar under Section 397 (3), Cr. P. C. would have been applicable had the revision been filed against order dismissing Criminal Revision No. 102/02. But the revision is against that part of order by which Criminal Revision No. 135/02 has been allowed. The revision against the order of Sessions Court passed in revision is maintainable if the applicant in both revisions is not the same. If the application of wife for maintenance is dismissed by the Sessions Court on revision by husband, subsequent revision by wife before the High Court is maintainable. The Criminal Revision No. 135/02 was filed by the non-applicant and present applicant was opposite party in that revision. The criminal revision filed by non-applicant/husband has been allowed and the order granting Rs. 500 per month as maintenance to applicant/wife has been set aside. The applicant is certainly entitled to file revision against the part of the order allowing the revision filed by non-applicant/husband and bar under Section 397 (3) does not apply. Hence, it cannot be said that this revision is second revision and is not maintainable.