Chanda Preetam Wadate V. Preetam Ganpatrao Wadate, 2002 (2) MH LJ 482

GENERAL INFORMATION

NAME OF THE CASE	CHANDA PREETAM WADATE V. PREETAM GANPATRAO WADATE
CITATION	2002 (2) MH LJ 482
JUDGEMENT	15TH OCTOBER 2001
BENCH	R. BATTA
APPEALLNT	CHANDA PREETAM WADATE
RESPONDENT	PREETAM GANPATRAO WADATE
COURT	BOMBAY HIGH COURT

FACTS OF THE CASE

Chanda Preetam Wadate is wife of Preetam Ganpatrao Wadate and applicant in this case. In this case applicant filed a case for maintenance under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Proceeding was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, First class, Yuvatmal on 31^st march 1993.The Applicant had filed a revision against the order and it was also dismissed by the Session Court Judge Yuvatmal on 28^th November 1997. The Applicant filed a case under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure in Bombay High Court against the Sessions court. The Appellant demanded 500/- rupees per month as maintenance.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the High Court’s jurisdiction to hear a petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is barred upon section 397 or not?

CONTENTIONS OF APPLICANT

Applicant contented that jurisdiction under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is not totally barred and that in appropriate cases, this court can exercise jurisdiction under section 482, criminal procedure code in spite of there being bar under section 397 (3),Criminal Procedure Code.

Applicant referred a case named Jitender Kumar Jain V. State of Delhi and Others, in which Sessions Court had dismissed revision and petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code was filed against the revisional order. The High Court had dismissed petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that in such a case, second revision petition before the High Court did not lie.  The case went to the Supreme Court of India and it was pointed by the court that High Court should not have dismissed the petition of the appellant on the premise as it has done, the case remanded back to the High Court.

 Applicant submitted a case in the court named Udaivir Singh v. Smt. Vinod Kumari in which wife was living separately from husband and chastity of wife was doubted by husband. The High Court held that the wife was justified in living separately from husband and claiming maintenance.

Applicant referred some another cases mainly, names are as under – Ganesh Narayan Hegde V. S. Bangarappa and Others, Royal Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and another V. Chief Enforcement Officer, Mary Angel and Ors. V. State of T.N., Chhagan Led Devman V. State of Maharashtra and Others, Khemchand v. State and anr.etc.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS

Respondents contended that application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code cannot be entertained in view of bar under Section 397 (2), Criminal Procedure Code.

Respondents referred a case named Rajan Kumar Machananda V. State of Karnataka, 1990 in which Supreme Court held that where a revision petition is dismissed by the Sessions court a second revision petition would not lie to the High Court.

Respondents referred another case in this regarding named Dharmapal and ors. V. Ramshri and ors., in which Supreme Court has laid down that second revision application after dismissal of the first by the Sessions Court cannot be entertained by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code.

Respondents submitted these cases in the Court – Deepti @ Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai and Others, Krishnan and anr. V. Krishnaveni and anr.,  Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V.C. Shukla v. State , Simirikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, Rajatki V. C. Ganeshan, Harisingh Mann V. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and ors.

 RELATED PROVISIONS

SECTION 483 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Duty of High Court to exercise continuous superintendence over courts of Judicial Magistrate. Every High Court shall so exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrates.

SECTION 397(2) AND (3) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

 SECTION 397 (2) – The powers of revision conferred by sub – section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

SECTION 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.

JUDGEMENT

The high court heard the case and held that the respondent is bound to pay 500/- per month as maintenance to the Applicant in favour of the present applicant from the date of filing of the application. The petition was allowed and court ordered respondent to pay maintenance to the applicant.

This article is written by Dikasha Gupta of NIMS School of Law, an inter under Legal Vidhiya