The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent power of the court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised when a statutory remedy is available under the law. Additionally, the convenience of the parties and the interest of justice are important considerations in transferring cases under Section 24 of C.P.C.

1. Through the medium of present petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks quashing of the judgment dated 17.01.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Munsiff) Reasi in a petition filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance under Section 488 Cr.P.C.

2. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that on 30.09.2014, a Criminal Transfer Application bearing No.22/2014 was filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of aforesaid Petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C. from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Reasi to any other Court at Jammu.

On 03.02.2016, a Civil Transfer Application bearing No.02/2016 came to be filed by the respondent seeking transfer of Petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act from the Court of Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases) Jammu to the Court of Principal District Judge, Reasi. These all have been taken together.

3. Petitioner in petition u/s 561-A Cr.P.C. No.186/2015 & MP No.01/2015 has averred that petitioner and respondent No.1 are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 12.10.2011 according to Hindu rites at Kunjwani, Jammu. After the marriage, respondent No.1 came to her matrimonial home at Ward No.16, Lower Shivanagar, Kathua for discharging her matrimonial obligations. The relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1 remained cordial for about one month. Thereafter, respondent No.1 insisted upon to join the job of Teacher in Convent School, Reasi since she had been teaching there in the said school prior to her marriage. On this, the petitioner requested her to search job at Kathua but respondent No.1 was time and again asking the petitioner to allow her to re-join the school at Reasi. The petitioner started searching job for her at Kathua and even got her interview in different schools at Kathua.

4. Petitioner has further averred various facts in this petition, which he should have pleaded in objections before Court where petition u/s 488 Cr.P.C. was filed by respondents. Even otherwise in petition u/s 561-A Cr.PC a detail appreciation of evidence cannot be done, which is only domain of trial court or appellate court or revisional court, if finding seems to be of perverse in nature. Whatever the petitioner has case on facts, it cannot be considered by Court, while exercising power under section 561-A Cr.P.C.

5. Now the only question is to be decided as to whether in a petition under section 561-A Cr.P.C. a final order passed by Magistrate u/s section 488 Cr.P.C. can be challenged, when petitioner has other remedy available to him under law. The answer is no, because law is settled that when there is statutory remedy available under law, then power under section 561-A Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised by this court.

6. In 2013 (4) RAJ in case titled ‘Mohit alias Sonu v State of UP’ it is held as under :-

“22. In our considered opinion, the complainant ought to have challenged the order before the High Court in revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. and not by invoking inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Maybe, in order to circumvent the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 397 or Section 401, the complainant moved the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the event a criminal revision had been filed against the order of the Sessions Judge passed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the High Court before passing the order would have given notice and opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

23. So far as the inherent power of the High Court as contained in Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, the law in this regard is set at rest by this Court in a catena of decisions. However, we would like to reiterate that when an order, not interlocutory in nature, can be assailed in the High Court in revisional jurisdiction, then there should be a bar in invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. In other words, inherent power of the Court can be exercised when there is no rem