( 1 ) ). THIS Letters Patent Appeal against order dated 1st July 1996 in special Civil Application No. 2735 of 1996 has arisen in the following circumstances.

( 2 ) THE appellant has married to respondent No. 1 in 1968 after the expiry of his first wife and has 3 children from the 2nd marriage, who are respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It appears that the marriage has suffered rough weather and the appellant estranged with second wife is living separately from his second wife and children from second marriage. On 19-11-1985, respondent No. 1 Jashuben filed a Misc. Criminal Application under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on her behalf as well as on behalf of the children and after reply of the appellant was received on 29th June 1986 an order for interim maintenance was made directing the appellant to pay Rs. 300. 00 per month in respect of the four respondents. The application under S. 125 came to be decided finally on 3rd February 1995, by which the claim of the respondents for maintenance was upheld. The quantum of maintenance was fixed at Rs. 1,350. 00 in all. It was ordered that the maintenance amount as finally determined, is payable from the date of the application. The individual determination of the maintenance was Rs. 500. 00 for wife-respondent No. 1, Rs. 300. 00 each for son Chandansinh and daughter Surya respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and Rs. 250. 00 for daughter Antarben - respondent No. 4. He passed further order that maintenance was payable to Chandansinh upto 5-3-1989, Surya upto 16-8-1993 and Antarben upto 16-11-1997 respectively upto the date of attaining the age of majority by the children of the appellant before us.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED with the order, the appellant preferred a Revision Application before the Sessions Judge at Palanpur, who, by his order dated 11th March 1996, dismissed the revision and confirmed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate.

( 4 ) THE petitioner filed a petition under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india before this Court for issuing a writ of Certiorari questioning the final order of maintenance awarded in the proceedings under S. 125 of Cr. P. C. The learned single Judge, after considering various aspects of the matter, was not inclined to entertain the petition under Art. 226 or its supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 and interfere with the final order of maintenance. About the prayer for grant of instalments, the appellant was left to take appropriate plea before the Judicial magistrate in the Execution Proceedings under S. 125 (3) of Cr. P. C.

( 5 ) IT was strenuously urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that learned single Judge seriously erred in rejecting the petition in limine by holding it to be not maintainable. It was urged that judicial review of any administrative order affecting the right of the person or judicial or quasi-judicial orders passed by any tribunal or Court, is the basic feature of the Constitution and there cannot be any jurisdictional embargo on the maintainability of the petition under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

( 6 ) THIS contentions need not detain us long. The principle needs hardly to be elaborated that maintainability of the petition under Art. 226 or Art. 227 is not to be viewed from the point of view whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition or not or a petitioner can move this Court under Art. 226 or 227 in a particular matter or not. But, it is primarily a case of exercise of discretion whether to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction to issue any writ, order or direction under Art. 226 in any particular matter or to exercise power of supervisory jurisdiction under art. 227 in a particular case or not. If the order is read as a whole, we find that at no point the learned single Judge has come to any such conclusion that no such petition can be filed or the Court cannot, in any circumstances entertain, the petition challenging the orders like the one in question. In each case