A joint award of interim maintenance to the wife and child is not permissible under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. However, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. to apportion a joint award of interim maintenance to ensure that the wife and child receive adequate maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings.

( 1 ) THE Judgment of the Court was as follows : this is an application praying that the order dated 2. 11. 2006 made by the learned Session Judge, A and N Islands at Port Blair in Criminal revision No. 17 of 2005 directing the petitioner herein to go on paying Rs. 1,800/- per month collectively towards subsistence allowance for both the o. P. No. 1 herein and her minor female issue, O. P. No. 2 herein till final disposal of the application for interim maintenance on merit afresh in miscellaneous Case No. 107 of 2005 pending in the Court of learned Judicial magistrate First Class-II, Port Blair be set aside. The application is made under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) ELABORATE arguments were advanced by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties in support of their respective contentions on the merits of the maintenance proceedings. It is not necessary nor is it desirable to enter into the merits of the case and express any opinion at this stage, which may prejudice either of the parties at the final hearing of the maintenance proceeding.

( 3 ) IT is an admitted position that the O. P. No. 1 is the legally married wife of the petitioner herein and their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In para 7 of the application filed on behalf of the petitioner herein, there is a clear averment to the effect that O. P. No. 1 resided with the petitioner at Port Blair from 1978 to 1981 and out of said wedlock one child was born in the year 1980.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argued that the conditional order of the learned Session Judge directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,800/-per month collectively as subsistence allowances for both of the O. P. No. 1 and O. P. No. 2 in the fact and circumstances of the case was clearly erroneous and as such the same is liable to be set aside. On behalf of the opposite parties, it was contended that the order impugned was perfectly correct and the learned Court below committed no error in passing the impugned order in exercise of its discretion under the law.

( 5 ) SECTION 482 of the Cr. P. C. confers a separate and independent power of the High Court alone to pass orders ex-debito justitiae in case where grave substantial injustice has been done or where the process of the Court has been seriously abused. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant, and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. Further, the power being an extraordinary one, it has to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases. In general words, the High Court's power under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. is a power to keep sub-ordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority to see that they do it in a legal manner. High Court cannot, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. set aside the order of the learned Session Judge passed in the revision petition. This will in another way amount to permit the applicant to take advantage of a second revision against the order of the learned Session Judge, which is barred by the provision of Section 397 (3) of the Cr. P. C.

( 6 ) IN the touchstone of the aforesaid ratio, this Court once again scrutinized the materials. There is no dispute with regard to the marriage of the petitioner with O. P. No. 1 and so also with regard tp birth of one child at port Blair in the year 1980 out of the said wedlock. There is no controversy that marriage between the petitioner herein and O. P. No. 1 herein is still subsisting. Whether the O. P. No. 1 left the house of the petitioner in the year 1981 at her own accord along with her minor child and further whether there were sufficient reasons for the O. P. No. 1 to refuse to stay with the petitioner are not the subject matter of consideration while disposing an application for interim maintenance in a proceeding under Section 125 of cr. P. C.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document