BANWARILAL Vs. RAMESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 7.2.1976 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, maintaining the order of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, dated 1.5.75 under section 125 (3), Cr. P. C.

(2.) It will be proper to recall a few facts before coming to the point in controversy in the present revision petition. The non-petitioner Smt. Rameshwari moved an application under section 488, Cr. P. C. (old) against the present petitioner claiming maintenance for herself and her daughter. The said application was resisted by the present petitioner, but ultimately on 30th March, 1974, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, awarded the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 80.00 p.m., for the non-petitioner and Rs. 50.00 p.m. for the female child with effect from the date of the order. Both the parties went in revision against the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, rejected the present petitioners revision and allowed the non-petitioners revision and modified the order for payment of maintenance with effect from the date of application vide his order 6.2.1975. The present petitioner further moved this Court against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, but the revision was rejected by this Court on 30th June, 1976. On 26.2.1975 the non-petitioner submitted an application under section 125(3), Crimial P.C. (New), in which she prayed that a sum of Rs. 11,440.00 have become due upto 18.2.1975 and the same has not been paid by the present petitioner deliberately, though he had sufficient means to pay and a prayer was made that the said amount may be recovered from the present petitioner and paid to her. On presentation of this application the Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, passed an order on 1.3.1975 to issue warrant of recovery under section 125 (3), Cr. P. C. (New). It was also recorded that the application is within a year. Instead of issuing warrant of attachment, it appears that warrant of arrest was issued and on 13.3.1975 he was produced before the Magistrate. The present petitioner was then enlarged on bail. An objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner that an opportunity of hearing be given to him and further proceedings under section 125 (3), Cr. P. C. (New) may not be taken till then, but the learned Magistrate over-ruled the objection by his order dated 1-5-1975. The learned Magistrate observed that the present petitioner was given time to bring stay order from the High Court, as it was expressed that he had preferred a revision petition against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, dated 6.2.1975, but no such order was produced. Thereafter, an application was moved by the present petitioner that he is prepared to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,000.00, but the same may not be paid to the present non-petitioner. In this connection it was observed by the learned Magistrate that such a condition cannot be imposed under section 125, Cr. P. C. (New), and it appears that the present petitioner, without any reason, does not want to make any payment by imposing such a condition. The learned Magistrate also stated in his order dated 1.5.1975 that warrant of attachment was also issued, but the same has not been successfully executed. As the present petitioner has moved an application for part payment of maintenance allowance, from which it appears that the present petitioner deliberately does not want to make any payment and so ordered for sending the present petitioner to one months imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the order of the learned Magistrate the present petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, but was unsuccessful. Hence, he has approached this Court under section 401 read with section 482, Cr. P. C.

(3.) At the very out set it may be observed that second revision to this Court is not competent and is barred under section 399 (3), Cr. P. C. The present petitioner has been unsuccessful in his revision petition before the Sessions. This being so it is not open to him to prefer a revision petition in this Court. On behalf of the present petitioner a prayer is made that the revision petition may be treated as an application under section 482, Cr. P. C., as there are good grounds for invoking the inherent powers of this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is heard as an application under section 482, Cr. P. C.