Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. By filing this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr. P.C.), the petitioner calls into question the order dated 2.5.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj, in Criminal Revision No. 8/2012, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.11.2011 passed by learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate(S), Karimganj in Misc. Case No. 4/2009 under Section 125 Cr. P.C., restoring the petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. filed by the opposite party No. 1, which was dismissed for default due to her non-appearance on 29.10.2011 because of her illness. Significantly, the order dated 16.11.2011, by which the learned Magistrate restored the case to file is not under challenge in this petition. The said order is also not a part of the petition.

2. The learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj held that the provision of section 125 Cr. P.C. is incorporated as a welfare measure for the needy by making provision for providing quick relief to the deprived wife, children etc. in the form of maintenance and therefore, the learned Magistrate committed no wrong by way of restoring the case in its original position and that no prejudice was caused to him by such restoration.

3. Repeated adjournments were obtained by the petitioner and the case was finally taken up for motion hearing on 23.1.2014.

4. I have heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for opposite party No. 2.

5. Mr. Biswas submitted that the instant petition before this court was filed questioning the jurisdiction and competence of the learned Magistrate to restore an application under section 125 Cr. P.C. which was dismissed for default as there is no provision in the Cr. P.C. to recall the order by which the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and that under section 362 of the Cr. P.C., no court, after signing its judgment or final order disposing of a case, can alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. However, learned counsel submitted that after the case was filed, he had come across a judgment of the Delhi High Court, dated 8.7.2011, rendered in the case of Jagmohan Arora v. Saroj Arora, wherein Delhi High Court had taken the view that learned Magistrate is empowered to restore the proceedings initiated under section 125 Cr. P.C., which was dismissed for non-appearance of the applicant. Learned counsel made available the copy of the judgment to the court for consideration and to pass appropriate order. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam also submitted that the proceeding under section 125 Cr. P.C., being civil in nature, the Magistrate can invoke inherent power to re-call his earlier order of dismissal and restore the case to file.

6. At the very outset, it will be most appropriate to take note of Jagmohan Arora (supra). While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, Delhi High Court had placed reliance upon section 127 Cr. P.C., which vests the court with the power to alter the maintenance allowance on proof of change in the circumstances of any person receiving maintenance or interim maintenance or ordered to pay maintenance or interim maintenance under section 125 Cr. P.C. Reference to section 127(2) Cr. P.C., which confers jurisdiction upon the Magistrate to cancel or vary any order made under Section 125 Cr. P.C. in consequence of any decision of a competent civil court, was also made. It was observed that scheme of Chapter -IX Cr. P.C. shows that the Magistrate does not become functus officio after passing an order under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and in view of there being no express prohibition, there is no bar on the Court to recall its order dismissing an application under section 125 Cr. P.C. Reliance was also placed in the case of Smti Savitri v. Govind Sing Rawat, AIR 1986 SC 984, wherein the Supreme Court had he