2002 (2) TMI 1361 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order quashing maintenance grant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. based on wife's voluntary departure and earnings from agricultural work. Exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by High Court. Applicability of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. barring second revision petition. Interpretation of exceptional circumstances for invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of court process and ensure justice.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, a wife, contested the High Court's order quashing the maintenance grant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The High Court's interference was primarily based on the wife's voluntary departure from the matrimonial home and her earnings from agricultural work. The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was questioned concerning the exercise of power in exceptional circumstances to prevent abuse of court process and ensure justice.

2. The judgment highlighted the restriction under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C., barring a second revision petition after dismissal by the sessions court. Citing precedents such as Dharampal v. Ramshri and Deepti alias Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai, the court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 cannot be used to circumvent explicit statutory provisions, thereby questioning the High Court's decision to entertain a second revision petition.

3. Referring to the case of Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, the court elucidated on the purpose of Section 397(3) to prevent delays and multiplicity of proceedings. It emphasized that the High Court's inherent power aims to correct miscarriages of justice and procedural errors, ensuring expeditious trials and public justice. The court underscored the need for sparing use of inherent powers to avoid procedural delays.

4. The court analyzed whether the wife's statements about leaving voluntarily and earning from agricultural work justified denying maintenance. It reiterated the husband's obligation to maintain his wife and the wife's right to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. unless circumstances under Sub-section (4) apply. Finding no such circumstances, the court concluded that the High Court erred in overturning the maintenance grant, restoring the original order by the judicial magistrate first class and the additional sessions judge.

5. In conclusion, the judgment upheld the wife's entitlement to maintenance, emphasizing the husband's responsibility and the wife's right under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court clarified the limited scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the need to prevent abuse of court processes while ensuring timely justice delivery.