Order: 1. First petitioner is one Padikkappurath Madhavi and petitioners 2 to 7 are her minor children. Respondent is the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 7. 2. For herself and on behalf of minor petitioners 2 to 7 the 1st petitioner filed M.C.17 of 1982 before the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tirur, against the respondent for maintenance under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By a clerical mistake her name was written in the petition as Malathi instead of Madhavi. Respondent admitted marriage as well as paternity though he raised a contention that his wife's name is Madhavi and he did not marry a lady by name Malathi. In spile of the mistake in name, identity of the first petitioner as his wife was never in dispute in the counter, though at the stage of evidence as Rw.l the respondent stated that though he married one Madhavi, petitioners 2 to 7 are not his children. This contention contrary to the admission in the pleadings was rightly negatived by the Magistrate accepting the evidence of Madhavi. 3. Madhavi thereafter filed a petition for permission to correct her name into Madhavi. The Magistrate disallowed the prayer saying that it will amount to amendment of pleading for which the criminal court has no jurisdiction. In spite of such an order the first petitioner gave evidence before court as Pw.l that she is not Malathi, but Madhavi. Accepting that evidence, especially on the ground that her identity and relationship is not disputed, while passing the final order the Magistrate held that the name stated in the petition as Malathi is only a clerical mistake and the person who filed the petition as first petitioner is Madhavi, the mother of petitioners 2 to 7 and wife of the respondent. Maintenance was accordingly awarded to all. 4. Respondent filed Crl. R. P.82 of 1983 before the Sessions Judge, Manjeri. Maintenance was accordingly awarded to all. 4. Respondent filed Crl. R. P.82 of 1983 before the Sessions Judge, Manjeri. The Sessions Judge did not consider the revision on the merits, but said “If the lower court was not competent to allow the petition for amendment, the best way for the lower court would have been to disallow the petition itself.” It was further pointed out by the Sessions Judge “If the lower court was of that view, then the lower court should not have granted an award in favour of the first petitioner accepting her name as Madhavi merely basing on an affidavit produced by her at the time of evidence. This procedure is an illegal one especially when the Magistrate had stated that he had no power to amend the pleadings. So on this ground alone the order of the Magistrate has to be set aside.” The Sessions Judge did not hesitate to sympathise with the ill-fate of the minors for no fault of theirs and said “Unfortunately for the wrong committed by the first petitioner, petitioners 2 to 7, the minors, will be put to difficulties because by setting aside of this order, they will lose the maintenance awarded as per this order.” By way of consolation to them the Sessions Judge said “Any how, the first petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application with her correct name showing as Madhavi against the respondent”, as if it is a concession shown to her and the minors. Describing the order of the Magistrate as “illegal, improper and incorrect” solely for the above reason the Sessions Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order as against all the petitioners and dismissed the maintenance petition. 5. Even accepting the entire reasonings of the Sessions Judge as correct what I am not able to understand is for what reason the order in favour of the poor minors was set aside. I can understand the wrong done by the Magistrate under the mistaken impression that correction of a clerical mistake in the name will amount to amendment of pleadings. But inspite of that ultimate justice was done by him and the wrong was thereby corrected in effect. I can understand the wrong done by the Magistrate under the mistaken impression that correction of a clerical mistake in the name will amount to amendment of pleadings. But inspite of that ultimate justice was done by him and the wrong was thereby corrected in effect. But the action of the Sessions Judge in saying that in spite of the satisfaction of the Magistrate regarding the clerical mistake and identity he ought to have dismissed the petition cannot be justified under any circumstances. 6. In this case we are not concerned with the question whether a criminal court has the power to allow amendment of pleadings. What was involved was only a correction of a clerical mistake to do justice to the parties. To say that even after being convinced of the genuineness of the mistake the court is powerless to grant relief cannot be accepted. When parties had no dispute that first petitioner is Madhavi, the wife of the respondent and mother of the minors, how can the court refuse relief on the technical ground that a wrong name is given in the petition. Courts are existing for dispensation of justice and not for its denial for technical reasons when law and justice otherwise demand. Even though inherent power saved under S.482 of the Cr.P.C. is only in favour of High Courts, the subordinate criminal courts are also not powerless in cases like this to do what is absolutely necessary for dispensation of juslice in the absence of a specific enabling provision provided there is no prohibition and no illegality or miscarriage of justice is involved. Under such circumstances in order to do what is absolutely necessary in the ends of justice or prevent prejudice or miscarriage of justice what is not prohibited could be taken as permitted because the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be taken to have contemplated and provided for every contingency by making exhaustive provisions to meet the situations. All the criminal courts are having such an auxiliary power subject to restrictions which justice, equity, good conscience and legal provisions demand provided it will not unnecessarily prejudice somebody else. 7. Correcting a mistake in the name for the purpose of doing justice is within the competence of any criminal court. Even in criminal cases during investigation, enquiry or trial we find wrong names being deleted and correct names included or substituted and mistakes corrected. 7. Correcting a mistake in the name for the purpose of doing justice is within the competence of any criminal court. Even in criminal cases during investigation, enquiry or trial we find wrong names being deleted and correct names included or substituted and mistakes corrected. That is something necessary in the ends of justice to avoid a wrong person being prosecuted or punished or to enable an offender being brought to justice. What is prohibited under S.362 of the Code itself is only altering or reviewing judgment or final order disposing of a case after it is signed. Even in such cases correction of a clerical or artithemetical error is permitted. Even a charge could be amended in appropriate cases. If so nothing prevents a clerical or arithmetical error in an FIR or a police charge or some other paper being corrected in the ends of justice. For the same reason nothing prevents a mistake in the pleadings in a proceeding under S.125 of the Code being corrected in order to justice to the parties. 8. Proceedings under S. 125 of the Code are not punitive. The object is not to punish a person for his neglect to maintain those whom he is bound to maintain. The section provides only a speedy remedy by a summary procedure to enforce liability in order to avoid vagrancy. Application under S.125 is not a complaint within the meaning of S.2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the person proceeded against is not an accused. It is not a criminal proceeding at all. It serves a social purpose and only prescribes an alternative forum to get relief. Though the section appears in a criminal trial and the remedy is a summary one the proceedings is of a civil nature. The enquiry is only quasi-criminal and admissions made in the pleadings can be taken into consideration and acted upon. It is true that even though the proceedings are of a civil nature, they do not amount to a civil suit. 9. Normally persons appearing before courts for such reliefs will be destitutes who are illiterate and ignorant of their rights. Strict rules of pleadings and evidence also are not insisted in such cases because of the position of those who are approaching courts and the social purpose behind the provision. 9. Normally persons appearing before courts for such reliefs will be destitutes who are illiterate and ignorant of their rights. Strict rules of pleadings and evidence also are not insisted in such cases because of the position of those who are approaching courts and the social purpose behind the provision. To say that even in such a case a clerical mistake in name cannot be corrected in order to grant the legitimate relief is too much. Such an interpretation will even defeat the purpose of the provision. If the reasoning of the Sessions Judge is accepted the fate of a proceeding under S. 125 is sealed if only a party, Advocate or his clerk in advertently commits a clerical mistake. Then it becomes an irremediable defect and whatever be the justice on other grounds the proceedings must fail. But the position is otherwise. In this case even accepting the views of the Sessions Judge that pleadings or even a clerical mistake cannot be corrected, then also his decision cannot stand. Magistrate has not corrected the pleadings or even a clerical mistake. On the satisfaction that petitioners are the wife and children he granted maintenance. Is he not entitled to do so? The Sessions Judge has not said that petitioners are not the wife and children and the Magistrate was wrong. His complaint was only in accepting her name as Madhavi with the available evidence. Accepting identity of a person on the basis of evidence does not involve any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness. It is only a finding on fact based on evidence on which the Sessions Judge had no right to interfere in revision unless there are acceptable reasons justifying interference in revision. No such reasons are stated by the Sessions Judge. 10. For all practical purposes the pleadings in a proceeding under S.125 are just like pleadings in a civil case and admissions in pleadings are also taken into account in granting or refusing reliefs. If so a wrong admission itself must be capable of being corrected if the ends of justice demand it because a wrong admission cannot be the basis of a relief or its refusal. If so a wrong admission itself must be capable of being corrected if the ends of justice demand it because a wrong admission cannot be the basis of a relief or its refusal. In granting reliefs courts are to be guided not by the form but by the substance and the approach should be to grant reliefs whenever justice demands and evidence supports and not to refuse it on technical grounds even when law and justice demand. 11. I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the order of the Magistrate as held by the Sessions Judge. In fact all those epithets are applicable only to the order of the Sessions Judge. Though the Magistrate has done an illegality, impropriety or incorrectness earlier, he has corrected it later and therefore failure of justice did not result. But the action of the Sessions Judge resulted in defeating the very purpose of the provision and occasioned harassment and miscarriage of justice. The Sessions Judge has at least forgotten the fact that denial of relief will result in starvation of six innocent minor children. They were forced to the alternatives of approaching this court or filing a fresh petition, but the remedies are also defeated or delayed for no fault of theirs. 12. Though normally this Court will be hesitant to interfere with judicial pronouncements in exercise of inherent powers, inexceptional cases like this when an illegality of this type which resulted in miscarriage of justice is brought to notice, this Court cannot but interfere under the inherent powers if not under the revision powers. 13. Normally I ought to have set aside the order of the Sessions Judge and directed him to re-hear the revision because he did not consider the revision on the merits. But if such a course is adopted relief to the poor children will be still delayed. Further the magistrate awarded maintenance only at the rate of Rs.25 to the wife and Rs.20 to each child per month. Liability and rate were also not in serious dispute before me. Therefore delay by a re-hearing will have to be avoided. The petition is allowed and the order of the Magistrate is restored quashing that of the Sessions Judge. Petition allowed.