SMT. SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. JASWANT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Smt. Santosh Kumari filed a petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance against Jaswant Rai, respondent, her husband. The maintenance application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by observing that the petitioner had not averred in the petition that she was unable to maintain herself and in the absence of such an averment, the maintenance application could not be allowed. The revision petition filed by the petitioner under section 197(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar was also dismissed The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that neither there was any pleading that the petitioner was unable to maintain herself, in the petition, nor she had stated so on oath in her statement when examined in Court. Both the above mentioned orders are sought to be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to be exercised under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) MR . Puri, learned counsel for the respondent has raised an objection that in view of the provisions of sub -section (3) of section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court has no jurisdiction to exercise its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the petitioner's revision stands dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge The learned counsel relies on the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaya v. State of Maharashtra : A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 47. It is no doubt true that as a principle if there are specific provisions dealing with a situation provided in the Code or if there is a specific taw regarding certain matter, the inherent powers will not be exercised, but there are few exceptional cases where the impugned orders bring out a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court of for purposes of securing ends of justice, interference by the High Court may become absolutely necessary. In the case relied upon by Mr. Puri, even though there is a specific bar under the provisions of sub -section (2) of section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that revisional powers cannot be exercised against the interlocutory order, still the inherent powers were invoked and their Lordships approved of the same.

(3.) IN view of what has been stated above, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent.