Dr. Hrudananda Das vs State of Orissa & Others

The petitioner Dr. Hrudananda Das who is now posted as Assistant Surgeon in C.H.C., Binjharpur, Jajpur has filed this writ petition challenging

the impugned order dated 05.06.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II), Bhadrak in Criminal Revision No. 16

of 2007 in dismissing the revision and thereby confirming the impugned order dated 06.02.2007 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak in

Misc. Case No.48 of 2004.

The opposite party no.2 Sumati Jena @ Das is the wife of the petitioner and opposite parties nos. 3, 4, 5 namely Swagarika Das, Adhatmika

Das and Dipasikha Das are the children of the petitioner and opposite party no.2. The opposite parties nos. 2 to 5 filed a petition under section

125 of Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak which was registered as Misc. Case No. 48 of 2004 claiming maintenance against the

petitioner. The learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak has been pleased to allow the misc. case on contest and directed the petitioner to pay monthly

maintenance of Rs.1500/- (rupees one thousand five hundred only) to each of the opposite parties nos. 2 to 5 from the date of institution of the

case i.e. from 02.04.2004 with a further direction to the petitioner to pay the arrear maintenance to the opposite parties nos. 2 to 5 within two

months of the order.

The petitioner preferred a revision before the Court of Session which was heard by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II),

Bhadrak in Criminal Revision No. 16 of 2007 which was dismissed vide order dated 05.06.2008.

Mr. P.R. Chhatoi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while challenging the impugned orders of the learned Courts below contended

that since the opposite party no.2 deserted the petitioner voluntarily, in view of section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., she is not entitled to get any

maintenance. He further contended that the amount of maintenance fixed was on the higher side and it should be reduced. In support of such

contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed the recent pay slip of the petitioner which was issued by the Medical Officer in charge,

C.H.C., Binjharpur, Jajpur dated 21.09.2017.

Mr. B.S. Dasparida, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand contended that such a point was raised before the learned

Revisional Court which has dealt with such point and held that there is no material to show that the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner were

living separately by mutual consent or the opposite party no.2 had left the matrimonial home voluntarily deserting the petitioner and she was staying

with her parents. It was further held that the opposite party no.2 adduced evidence to prove that the petitioner deserted her, torture her demanding

more dowry for which a criminal case was initiated against him and the same is subjudiced in the Criminal Court. It was further held that there is no

evidence from the side of the petitioner to prove that he tried to get back his wife (opposite party no.2) and children (opposite parties nos. 3 to 5)

from the parents? house of the opposite party no.2 at any time or any case was instituted for restitution of conjugal life. It was further held that

there is no material on record to show that the petitioner gave a bonafide offer to the wife (opposite party no.2) and the wife refused the offer.

Accordingly, the learned Revisional Court turned down such point.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 contended that the opposite party no.2 was subjected to torture in connection with demand of

dowry for which a criminal case was initiated against the petitioner in which the charge sheet has been submitted under section 498-A of the Indian

Penal Code. It is further contended that when the second revision by the selfsame party is barred in view of the provision under section 397(3) of

Cr.P.C., in absence of any gross illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below, this writ petition should not be

entertained.

Section 397(3) of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

397(3). If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application

by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.

Law is well settled that the bar under section 397(3) of Cr.P.C. cannot be circumvented either by taking recourse to section 482 Cr.P.C. or by

filing a writ petition. In case of Krishnan -Vrs.- Krishnaveni reported in (1997) 13 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 41, it is held that when the

revision has been barred by section 397(3) of the Code, a person cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under

section 397(1) or under inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions

of section 397(3) or section 397(2) of the Code. When the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice

or abuse of the process of the Courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed

or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave

miscarriage of justice would ensure. It is, therefore, to meet ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with

inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power and in an appropriate case even revisional power

under section 397(1) read with section 401 of the Code.

After going through the impugned orders, I find that the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak has formulated five points and discussed the evidence of the

witnesses adduced from both the sides and passed a reasoned order holding that it is an admitted fact that the opposite party no.2 is the wife of the

petitioner and the opposite parties nos.3 to 5 are the children of both the petitioner and the opposite party no.2. It has also been held that the

petitioner being a doctor neglected the opposite parties nos. 2 to 5 to maintain and further held that the opposite party no.2 was a jobless lady and

she was not doing anything and residing along with her children at Bhadrak. It was further held that the opposite party no.2 had got no source of

income of her own and the petitioner has got sufficient means and he willfully refused to maintain the opposite parties nos. 2 to 5. The learned

revisional Court has confirmed the findings arrived at by the learned Magistrate. It has also considered the point relating to voluntary desertion of

the opposite party no.2 and answered in the negative.

When there is background of torture to the opposite party no.2 by the petitioner and a criminal case has been instituted by her which has led to

filing of the charge sheet, it cannot be said that in such a scenario, if the wife lives separately from the husband she would be disentitled from getting

any maintenance particularly when she has got no source of income of her own.

Therefore, in absence of any illegality in the impugned order of maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate which has been confirmed by

the learned revisional Court, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, section 127 of

Cr.P.C. provides for the aggrieved party to file appropriate application for alteration of the maintenance amount. The petitioner is at liberty to file

any such petition before the appropriate Court which will be considered in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the WPCRL application being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.