The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing paternity before granting maintenance, the retrospective effect of procedural law amendments, and the limitations of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.

1. Through the medium of present petition, petitioner seeks quashing of judgment and order dated 19-8-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in file No.6/Revision titled Koushal Kumar Sharma Vs. Ms. Prerna Sharma whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 25-4-2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu has been dismissed.

2. It is stated in the petition that a petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance was filed by the respondent and her mother Reeta Sharma against the petitioner in the court of Sub Judge, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, and Jammu. It was alleged that Reeta Sharma was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the respondent was their daughter. The aforesaid claim was totally denied by the petitioner. That the learned Sub Judge, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu vide judgment and order dated 7-9-1996 held that Reeta Sharma was not legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate accordingly dismissed the application for grant of maintenance so far as Reeta Sharma was concerned, but granted an amount of Rs. 400/- per month in favour of the respondent. The petitioner filed a revision petition being File No. 12/Revision in the court of learned Sessions Judge Jammu, so far as the grant of maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month in favour of the respondent was concerned. Smt Reeta Sharma and the respondent also filed Revision petition being File No. 18/Revision against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Judicial Magistrate lst Class Jammu. The respondents prayed for the enhancement of the maintenance whereas her mother Reeta Sharma prayed for setting aside order whereby her claim was dismissed. Both the Revision petitions were disposed off by the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu by a common order dated 10.01.1997. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that Reeta Sharma was not legally wedded wife of the petitioner, as such the order passed by the Sub Judge Judicial Magistrate Ist. Class Jammu was up held to that extent. So far as the grant of maintenance in favor of the respondent was concerned the learned Sessions Judge held that the same was not sustainable. It was further held that the Magistrate was not right in declaring respondent to be the illegitimate child of the petitioner without recording the finding regarding the paternity of the child. It was further held by the learned Sessions Judge that whether the respondent was the illegitimate child of the petitioner, it was not proper to accept the said question on merely statement of her mother without corroboration. Accordingly the learned Sessions Judge made a reference to the High Court with the recommendation to set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate Sub Judge, Jammu dated 07.09.1996 whereby the respondent was granted Rs.400/- as maintenance per month. The High Court vide judgment and order dated 11.03.1997 accepted the reference and consequently set aside the order dated 07.09.1996 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Jammu.

3. It is further stated in the petition that the respondent and her mother filed an application on 05.10.1996 seeking a direction for recovery of Rs.8,800/- as maintenance from the salary of the petitioner. That subsequent to the filing of the application, the order granting maintenance was set aside by this Court in the reference. That another application was filed by the mother of the respondent for summoning the witnesses in order to prove the paternity of the respondent. The said application was submitted under Section 540 Cr.PC. She cited as many as 7 witnesses. The said application was allowed vide judgment and order dated 24.11.1997 and the mother of the respondent was directed to deposit diet expenses of the witnesses. Against the aforesaid order dated 24.11.1997, petitioner filed a petition under Section 561-A Cr.PC No. 10/98 in this Court. However, the said petiti