Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 363 (MP)

Rakesh Kumar Saxena v. Sadhana Saxena

1994-05-02

TEJ SHANKAR

body1994
JUDGMENT This petition U/s. 482 is directed against the order dated 22.3.93 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Cr. Revision Petition No. 45/90 and 4/90. It appears that a petition u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate for maintenance of non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 claiming themselves to be wife and son respectively of applicant Rakesh Kumar Saxena. The petition was contested and was allowed by the learned Magistrate on 23.11.89. A sum of Rs. 300/- per month was awarded to the non-applicant No. 1 and Rs. 200/- per month to non-applicant No. 2 respectively. Both parties preferred revision petition. Revision Petition No. 4/90 was preferred by the present applicant Rakesh Kumar Saxena and non-applicants preferred revision No. 45/90. As they relate to the same case, they were heard together and decided on 22.3.93. The learned revising Court dismissed the revision petition No. 4/90 of the present applicant and allowed revision petition No. 45/90 whereby the amount of maintenance awarded to the non-applicants was enhanced to Rs. 400/- so far as non-applicant No. 1, Smt. Sadhana Saxena was concerned and Rs. 300/- to non-applicant Ashish Saxena was concerned. Feeling aggrieved the present petition u/s. 482 has been preferred. The learned counsel for the non-applicant raised a preliminary objection that the petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable because the revision petition against the order passed by the learned Magistrate allowing the maintenance was confirmed. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the order passed by the learned revising Court is two fold. Firstly, the order of maintenance was confirmed and secondly the amount was enhanced. In any case, the learned counsel contended that the present petition is maintainable as the maintenance was enhanced. He also contended that the learned revising Court did not give reasons for enhancing the maintenance as well as the reason for awarding the maintenance from the date of the petition and as such the impugned order is illegal and interference u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be made. The learned counsel for the non-applicant, on the other hand, contended that the learned revising Court in para 13 of his order has given reasons for enhancement. There is no abuse of process of Court and as such the inherent powers can not be exercised. I have considered the contentions raised before me by the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the non-applicant, on the other hand, contended that the learned revising Court in para 13 of his order has given reasons for enhancement. There is no abuse of process of Court and as such the inherent powers can not be exercised. I have considered the contentions raised before me by the learned counsel for the parties. The position of law cannot be disputed that in exercise of inherent powers u/s 482 this Court can interfere in the impugned order to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. Now it is settled that petition u/s 482 is not maintainable against the order passed in revision confirming the order of the Magistrate. Thus, so far as that part of the impugned order is concerned whereby the order of the learned Magistrate was confirmed the petition u/s 482 is not maintainable. Of course, the order through which the amount of maintenance was enhanced can be challenged provided the applicant succeeds in showing that there is abuse of the process of the Court or it is necessary for the ends of justice. As said above, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the revising Court has not given reasons for enhancement. The reasons have been given. It cannot, therefore, be said that there is an abuse of the process of the Court. As regards the next question that reasons for awarding the maintenance from the date of the petition is concerned it may be mentioned that in that case too it cannot be said to be, in any case, the abuse of the process of the Court. Thus, no interference u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be made. No doubt reasons should have been recorded but non-recording the reasons cannot be said to be sufficient for interference u/s 482. This petition is liable to be rejected on its initial stage. The petition is dismissed without costs.