GANESH MAJHI Vs. NIDRA MAJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the order of the revisional Court maintaining the order passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bargarh, granting maintenance to the opposite party at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month in a proceeding under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After unsuccessfully moving the Court of Session in its revisional jurisdiction, the petitioner has made this application under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The inherent jurisdiction to be exercised under S. 482 of the Code is not controlled by the provisions made in Ss. 397(2) and 397(3) of the Code, but inherent jurisdiction should be exercised in rare and exceptional cases in the interest of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. After failing in the first Court of revision, a party cannot be allowed to avoid the bar contained in S. 397(3) of the Code and come to this Court for exercise of jurisdiction under S. 482, without any manifest illegality.

(2.) Mr. Misra has submitted for the petitioner that the quantum of maintenance granted by the learned Magistrate is on the higher side. This is purely a question of fact depending on the capacity of the petitioner as judged by the Courts below. Besides, a sum of Rs. 100/- granted as maintenance to a lady cannot be said to be heavy in these hard days. Irrespective of the question regarding the value of the petitioner's immoveable properties, he, being an able-bodied person, is liable to maintain his wife.

(3.) For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the revision made in this Court is not maintainable and is devoid of merits.