HASAN RAZA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.06.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in Cri. Misc. Case No. 12 of 2011, whereby and whereunder he allowed the application filed by O.P. No. 2 under Sec. 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). Petitioner further prayed for quashing the order dated 23.09.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cri. Revision No. 123 of 2013, whereby he rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of learned Judicial Magistrate dated 14.06.2013. It appears that O.P. No. 2 had filed an application under Sec. 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 for issuance of a direction upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,16,717/ - towards various heads i.e. maintenance amount for the period of Iddat., maintenance for the children, Den Mehar, value of the gifts given to her at the time of marriage by her parents and relatives etc.

(2.) It is admitted that O.P. No. 2 was married to petitioner as per the Muslim Law. It is also admitted position that petitioner divorced O.P. No. 2 on 12.04.2011. Thereafter present application filed by the O.P. No. 2, claiming the aforesaid amount as per the provisions contained under Sec. 3 of the Act. It appears that learned Judicial Magistrate, after considering the evidences of the parties, had concluded that O.P. No. 2 is entitled to aforesaid amount, accordingly, the learned Magistrate, vide her order dated 14.06.2013 directed the petitioner to pay aforesaid amount to the O.P. No. 2 within one month. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 123 of 2013, which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, who after considering the reasoning and evidences available on record, had concluded that there is no illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate. Against the aforesaid two orders, the present Cri. M.P. filed.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the 2nd revision is barred under Sec. 397 of the Cr.P.C., but an application under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C., is maintainable against the orders of the courts below if there is a grave miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of court. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another v/s. Krishnaveni and another reported in : (1997) 4 SCC 241 : (AIR 1997 SC 987).