KRISHNA MOHAN NATH Vs. DIPTI RANI NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision petition is so filed by the sole petitioner Shri Krishna Mohan Nath under the provisions of section 482 Cr . P. C. 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 26.11.88 passed by the learned Session Judge, Karimganj in C. M No 11 (3) of 1987 by virtue of which the learned Sessions Judge in the petition so filed before him by this petitioner has affirmed the order so passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karimganj dated 8.7.87 in Misc. Case No. 42/86 in which the learned Judicial Magistrate while disposing of a petition under section 125 Cr. P.C. ordered for paying maintenance of Rs 100/- p.m to Smti Dipti Rani Nath, opposite party.

(2.) Heard Mr D.S Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sr counsel Mr A. S. Bhajttacharjee. Mr D.S. Bhattacharjee has submitted that there was no proper appreciation of evidence by the learned Judicial Magistrate while directing this petitioner as to pay maintenance of Rs 100/- p.m. to Smti Dipti Rani Nauh and when this matter was so raised by filing a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, unfortunately the re visional Court also did not take the trouble as to threadbare analysing the evidence because if that would have been so done, the learned revisional court would have come to the conclusion that the order so passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was against the facts and circumstance of the case. Hence, the prayer is that the impugned orders require interference.

(3.) Mr A Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party i.e. Smti Dipti Rani Nath on the other hand has submitted that this criminal Revision petition so preferred in the garb of section 482 Cr. P.C. by the same party i.e. the petitioner Shri Krishna Mohan Nath who had already preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge against the order so passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Misc. Case No. 42/86 disposed of on 8.7.87 is not entertainable. In all fairness, it is also submitted that there is no provision for preferring the second revision by the same party particularly in the background of the provisions of section 397 (3) and 399 (3) of the Cr. P.C. The learned counsel for the opposite party Mr. A. Sarma also claimed himself to be fortified to the reported case of 1993 (1) SCC pg. 435 (Dharampal & Ors. -Vs- Reshmi (Smt. & Ors) . In the background of the above ruling so cited particularly by referring to its para 6, Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the second Revision application after the dismissal of the first one by the Sessions Judge cannot be entertained by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C, Hence the prayer is that since there is no merit in this criminal Revision petition., the same be dismissed and be thus not entertained and looked into as to consider for giving any relief so sought for by the petitioner.