1. Respondent No.1, mother, moved an application for grant of maintenance on behalf of minor son and daughter, respondents 2 and 3 in terms of Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Svt. 1989 (1933 A.D.), hereafter, for short the Code, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, came to be transferred to Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Judge Small Causes), Srinagar. Learned trial court granted the maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- each per month from the date of presentation of the petition i.e. 22.06.2002. Petitioner, father, feeling aggrieved challenged the same by the medium of revision petition before the Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar, came to be transferred to court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sriangar. 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 09.02.2010.

2. Petitioner has questioned both the orders by the medium of this petition.

3. It is beaten law of the land, that power in terms of Section 561-A Cr. P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously. The power can be exercised only when it appears that the process issued amounts to abuse of the process of Court/ law or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. It is to be exercised in rarest of rare cases. Court has to keep in mind that it is not functioning as a court of appeal or revision.

4. The Apex Court has laid down the guidelines and parameters in cases Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka, 2008 AIR SCW 1003; K.L.E. Society v. Siddalingesh, 2008 AIR SCW 1993; Reshma Bano v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 AIR SCW 1998; State of A. P. v. Bajjoori Kanthaiah, AIR 2008 SCW 7860 and Baijnath Jha v. Sita Ram, 2008 AIR SCW 4614. The Apex Court has also laid down the parameters/ guidelines in case State of Andhra Pradesh v. Goloconda Linga Swamy, AIR 2004 SCW 3967. It is apt to reproduce para 8 of the judgment report in AIR 2008 SCW 1993.

"8. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle "quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest" (when the law gives a person anyting it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document