Correction of clerical mistakes for dispensation of justice is within the competence of any criminal court, and the purpose of S.125 is to provide a speedy remedy to enforce liability and avoid vagrancy.

1. First petitioner is one Padikkappurath Madhavi and petitioners 2 to 7 are her minor children. Respondent is the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 7.

2. For herself and on behalf of minor petitioners 2 to 7 the 1st petitioner filed M. C. 17/82 before the judicial I Class Magistrate, Tirur, against the respondent for maintenance under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By a clerical mistake her name was written in the petition as Malathi instead of Madhavi. Respondent admitted marriage as well as paternity though be raised a contention that his wife's came is Madhavi and he did not marry a lady by name Malathi. In spite of the mistake in name, identity of the first petitioner as his wife was never in dispute in the counter, though at the stage of evidence as rw.1 the respondent stated that though he married one Madhavi, petitioners 2 to 7 are not his children. This contention contrary to the admission in the pleadings was rightly negatived by the Magistrate accepting the evidence of Madhavi.

3. Madhavi thereafter filed a petition for permission to correct her name into Madhavi. The Magistrate disallowed the prayer saying that it will amount to amendment of pleading for which the criminal court has no jurisdiction. In spite of such an order the first petitioner gave evidence before court as pw.1 that she is not Malathi, but Madhavi. Accepting that evidence, especially on the ground that her identity and relationship is not disputed, while passing the final order the Magistrate held that the name stated in the petition as Malathi is only a clerical mistake and the person who filed the petition as first petitioner is Madhavi, the mother of petitioners 2 to 7 and wife of the respondent. Maintenance was accordingly awarded to all.

4. Respondent filed Crl. R. P. 82/83 before the Sessions Judge, Manjeri. The Sessions Judge did not consider the revision on the merits, but said "If the lower court was not competent to allow the petition for amendment, the best way for the lower court would have been to disallow the petition itself." It was further pointed out by the Sessions Judge "If the lower court was of that view, then the lower court should not have granted an award in favour of the first petitioner accepting her name as Madhavi merely basing on an affidavit produced by her at the time of evidence. This procedure is an illegal one especially when the Magistrate bad stated that he had no power to amend the pleadings. So on this ground alone the order of the Magistrate has to be set aside." The Sessions Judge did not hesitate to sympathise with the ill-fate of the minors for no fault of theirs and said "Unfortunately for the wrong committed by the first petitioner, petitioners 2 to 7, the minors, will be put to difficulties because by setting aside of this order, they will lose the maintenance awarded as per this order." By way of consolation to them the Sessions Judge said "Any how, the first petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application with her correct name showing as Madhavi against the respondent", as if it is a concession shown to her and the minors. Describing the order of the Magistrate as "illegal, improper and incorrect" solely for the above reason the Sessions Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order as against all the petitioners and dismissed the maintenance petition.

5. Even accepting the entire reasonings of the Sessions Judge as correct what I am not able to understand is for what reason the order in favour of the poor minors was set aside. I can understand the wrong done by the Magistrate under the mistaken impression that correction of a clerical mistake in the name will amount to amendment of pleadings. But inspite of that ultimate justice was done by him and the wrong was thereby corrected in effect. But the action of the Sessions Judge in saying that in spite of the satisfaction of the Magistrate regarding the clerical mistake and identity he ought to ha