JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.—This petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 7-6-1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (II), Shimla. Where by the application of the petitioner, Bali Ram, for restoration of Criminal Revision No. 65-S/10 of 1987 was dismissed. The petitioner had filed the said Criminal Revision petition against the order dated 23-12-1W of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (I), Shimla, which was dismissed in default vide order dated 1-3-1988 by Addl Sessions Judge (II), Shimla. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, (I), Shimla had allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs 200 per month to respondents No, 2 and 3, Miss Rukmini and Miss Nanki alias Sheela, his daughters. 2. The respondents, Smt Krishna Devi, Miss Rukmini and Miss Nanki alias Sheela had filed petition under sec. 125, Cr. P.C. for maintenance in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class against Bali Ram as his wife and daughters. Bali Ram had resisted the application, inter alia, denying his marriage with Smt. Krishna Devi and also the relationship of father with Miss Rukmini and Miss Nanki alias Sheela. On the appreciation of evidence however, the trial Court rejected his defence and held Smt. Krishna as his wife and Miss Rukmini and Miss Nanki alias Sheela as his daughters. Maintenance to Smt. Krishna was denied by holding that she is able to maintain herself as she is in employment. Keeping in view the income of Bali Ram, an amount of Rs. 200 per month to Miss Rukmini and Miss Nanki alias Sheela each was allowed as maintenance by the trial Court. His denial that the petitioners No. 2 and 3 were not his daughters was enough to come to the conclusion that he refused or neglected to maintain them. 3. Feeling aggrieved Bali Ram filed Revision Petition in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (II), Shimla, which was dismissed for want of prosecution when he failed to appear on 1-3-1988. His application to restore the Criminal Revision was also dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (II), Shimla by the impugned order on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to review or recall the order dated 1-3-1988. Sh, Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, does not dispute that the Criminal Revision dismissed in default could not be restored by the Addl. Sessions Judge (II), Shimla by the impugned order on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to review or recall the order dated 1-3-1988. Sh, Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, does not dispute that the Criminal Revision dismissed in default could not be restored by the Addl. Sessions Judge but he urges that the order dated 1-3-1988 dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition was bad and could not be passed by the Sessions Judge. It is well settled proposition of law that once a Criminal Revision or Criminal Appeal is admitted to hearing, it is incumbent upon the Court to decide the appeal or Revision on merits by indicating in its judgment that record has been perused. A Criminal Appeal or Criminal Revision cannot be dismissed in default. (Please see : Mina Ram etc. v. Jivlu, 1973 ILR (HP) 813, Shyam Deo Pandey and others v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1606, Kalu Ram and others v. The State of Haryana, 1980 CLR (P & H) 31, and Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lai and another, AIR 1981 SC 736. 4. Now the question arises what was the remedy available against the order dated 1-3-1988 dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition of Bali Ram. Definitely It was not an application for restoration as the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to review or recall his order once made in Criminal matter. He could approach this Court under section 482, Cr. P. C. or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India But now, after his application for restoration of the Criminal Revision Petition has been dismissed, it is to be seen whether it is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under section 482, Cr.P.C. The inherent powers under section 482, Cr. P. C. can be exercised by the High Court only if three conditions contained therein are satisfied, namely :— (i) for the purpose of giving effect to any order under the Code ; (ii) for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court; and (iii) for otherwise securing the ends of justice. Mr. Bhupender Gupta has not been able to show that his case falls under any one or other of these three conditions. I have gone through the order dated 2-9-? Mr. Bhupender Gupta has not been able to show that his case falls under any one or other of these three conditions. I have gone through the order dated 2-9-? 987 of the Judicial Magistrate and find that the Magistrate has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at his findings that Miss Rukmini and Miss Nanki alias Sheela are the daughters of Bali Ram and they have been rightly granted maintenance of Rs. 200 per month each. Moreover, as held by the Supreme Court in Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar and another; AIR 1958 SC 376, the inherent powers are required to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only where such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down by the section itself. At that time it was section 561 of old Code of Criminal Procedure but it was parimateria. 5. In view of the above discussion, the present petition fails and it is dismissed. Petition dismissed. -