Does the petitioner have a right to challenge the impugned order in revision? If he has such a right, is he justified in coming to this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.? These are the questions of importance raised at the threshold in this Crl.M.C.

2. Against the petitioner a claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the claimants - his wife and two minor children. That claim was decided ex parte by Annex.A order. The petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to his wife and two minor children at the rates of Rs.1,500/- Rs.1,250/- and Rs.1,000/- p.m. respectively. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte order. That petition was disposed of by the impugned order, copy of which is produced as Annexure-C. The court took the view that the petition is meritless and represents only an attempt to protract the proceedings to the maximum extent possible. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge the impugned order rejecting his application to set aside the ex parte order filed under the proviso to Section 126 Cr.P.C.

I am called upon to invoke and exercise the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction which is available to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not really confer any powers on the High Court. Instead, it saves certain powers which are already there vested inherently in all High Courts to act in aid of justice. It is trite that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are "awesome" in nature and can in an appropriate case be invoked even to do justice beyond the law. The only, primary and predominant consideration while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is whether the interests of justice demand invocation of such extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction. By the very nature of the power - considering the width, amplitude and sweep of such powers, the High Court must be reluctant to invoke such powers as a matter of course. Where the aggrieved party has equally efficacious alternative remedy under law, such extra ordinary powers need not and should not be invoked by this Court. Extra ordinary situations may call for extra ordinary responses and it is only under such circumstances that this court would be justified in invoking the powers under Section 482 cr.P.C.

3. It is trite that when under the Code an alternative remedy exists the party must resort to such ordinary remedy to claim the relief which he wants. The extra ordinary powers being so wide in its sweep, this Court may in an appropriate case be justified in invoking such powers even when alternative remedy is available. But that can only be an exception to the normal rule. The requirement of order and discipline in proceedings before court mandates that where specific avenues of challenge are available under the ordinary provisions of the Code, resort to powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not ordinarily be made. I remind myself that it is not want of jurisdictional competence, but only a matter of self restraint imposed by court on itself that such powers cannot be invoked ordinarily unless exceptional reasons are there. Where remedies are otherwise available under the ordinary provisions of the Code resort to such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction will not be justified, unless exceptional circumstances of a given case warrant invocation of such powers in the interests of justice.

4. It is in this context that the question arises whether the impugned order is revisable or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not a revisable order and consequently the availability of the option to challenge the order in revision cannot fetter his right to approach this Court with this petition under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel contends that the bar under Sec.397(2) Cr.P.C. shall apply and inasmuch as the impugned order is an interim order, he has no right of revision and conseq