Gulzar Singh vs Rani @ Raj Rani and Others

H.S. Brar, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the order, dated October 1, 1992 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar, vide which he allowed the application of the respondents u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the order dated May 5, 1993 vide which the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur had dismissed the Revision Petition of the petitioner filed against the order of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar.

Respondents Rani @ Raj Rani wife of petitioner Gulzar Singh had filed an application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance for her self and for her minor sons Baljunder Singh and Balbir Singh and minor daughter Reena vide order dated October 1, 1992 the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar allowed the petition u/s 125 of the Code and petitioner Gulzar Singh was ordered to pay maintenance allowance to his wife and the minor children, who are respondents in this petition.

Revision petition filed by the present petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was dismissed vide his order dated May 5, 1993. Hence this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur in the Revision Petition filed by petitioner Gulzar Singh.

The learned Counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection saying that second revision petition filed by the petitioner here under garb of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that is inherent powers of this Court, is not competent and this petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.

I find force in the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Admittedly, petitioner Gulzar Singh had filed a revision petition against the order, dated October 1, 1992 of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar granting maintenance allowance for his wife and the children and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order, dated May 5, 1993 had dismissed his revision petition. The second revision petition is specifically barred u/s 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Merely by saying that the jurisdiction of the High Court for exercise of its inherent powers was being invoked, the statutory bar could not have been overcome. If that was to be permitted, any revision petition facing the bar of Section 397(3) of the Code could be labelled as one u/s 482 of the Code. There was no dearth of authority on the point. For facility of reference, Rajan Kumar Manchanda v. State of Karnataka 1988(2) RCR 662 and Dharam Pal and Ors. v. Smt. Rameshri and Ors. 1993(1) RCR 696 may be seen.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the maintenance allowance could not be allowed to the wife particularly in view of the fact that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent wife was passed by the Subordinate Judge First Class, Patti, vide his judgment, dated August 27, 1990. A copy of that order has been annexed as Annexure P1 with this petition. The petitioner cannot take the benefit of the order of the Subordinate Judge First Class, Patti, which he has attached as Annexure P1 with the petition. It was for him to produce his evidence before the Trial Court to substantiate this factual position which decidedly was hot done by him before the Trial Court though he was given an opportunity to do so. Now he is barred at this stage in this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to take up this point and lead additional evidence.

In view of my discussion made above, this petition is without any force and is dismissed as such.