PABITRA SWAL SINGH Vs. MANIKYA DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, against whom an order of maintenance has been passed by a Judicial Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), assails the order dated 28.7.1981 passed by Mr. B.K. Patnaik Additional Sessions Judge. Berhampur, in the Criminal Revision preferred by him against the order of maintenance and I would quote below the impugned order : -

(2.) MR . D. Pattnaik, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and therefore, it was an illegal order for which the bar under Section 397(3) of the Code would not apply to the case and even assuming that Section 397(3) would be a bar to an application in revision being made to this Court, this Court in its inherent jurisdiction, can set at naught the impugned order to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. Reliance has been placed on the principles laid down in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 47 : (1978 Cri LJ 165). Mr. Y.S.R. Murty, placing reliance on the principles laid down in Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh (1979) 1 SCC 560 : (1979 Cri LJ 318) has contended that the petitioner could not be allowed to circumvent the statutory bar under Section 397(3) by praying this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction which should be exercised in rare and exceptional cases.

(3.) IN the result, the application is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, is directed to dispose of the Criminal Revision in accordance with law. Application allowed.