RUKMA Vs. KHETA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated July 8,1987, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, by which the revision - -petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) SMT . Rukma filed an application Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to her from her husband Kheta Ram in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after trial, by his order dated February 17,1986, rejected the application filed by the applicant. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, the petitioner preferred a revision -petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, which was ultimately decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner by his order dated July 3, 1987. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the revision -petition filed by the petitioner by his order dated July 8,1987. It is against this order that the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that there is a statutory bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. for filing second revision petition by the same party and, therefore, to over -come this difficulty, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed. Merely by changing the nomenclature and mentioning this petition as under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the nature of the petition will not be changed. By this petition, the petitioner wants to get the order, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, revised and in this view of the matter, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is nothing but a second revision petition, though styled as a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court, in the case of Ranjan Kumar v. The State of Karnataka, 1990 SCC 537, dealing with the maintainability of the petition Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has observed as under: