IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that divorced women are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the inherent powers of the High Court can be invoked even after a revision has been dismissed, provided there is a potential miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

(Mohd. Akram Chowdhary, J.) :

1. The Petitioner, through the medium of the instant Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), has challenged the Order dated 4th of December, 2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Sub Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate), Pulwama in an application filed by the Respondents under Section 125 of the Code for grant of maintenance as well as Order dated 27th of December, 2021 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama; whereby the Revision Petition filed against the aforesaid Order dated 4th of December, 2021 was dismissed.

2. The Petitioner claims that the Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code for grant of maintenance before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama, who transferred the same to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (Special Mobile Magistrate), Pulwama for its disposal under law. After causing his appearance before the trial Court, the Petitioner is stated to have filed his Objections in opposition to the said application. Thereafter, it is stated that the learned trial Court, in terms of Order dated 4th of December, 2021, granted interim maintenance of Rs. 8,500/- per month in favour of the Respondents from the date of presentation of the Petition in disregard of the fact that the Respondent No. 1 has already been divorced by the Petitioner and that in domestic violence proceedings an amount of Rs. 10,500/- has already been granted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Chadoora in her favour, which Order was in force.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the Order dated 4th of December, 2021, the Petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Pulwama, stating therein that the impugned Order, on the face of it, is bad in law, inasmuch as the learned trial Court, while passing the said Order, has ignored the relevant and material facts of the case. The learned Sessions Judge, however, after hearing the parties, dismissed the Revision Petition vide Order dated 27th of December, 2021 on the ground that the learned Magistrate, while passing the Order impugned, appears to have been well aware of the fact that in previous proceedings filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short 'the D. V. Act'), the competent Court has passed an interim maintenance of Rs. 10,500/- in favour of the Respondents and, as the said maintenance amount is not sufficient for the Respondents to maintain themselves, therefore, the learned trial Court has correctly passed the impugned Order. It is, in these circumstances, that the Petitioner has filed this Petition stating therein that the Order dated 4th of December, 2021 passed by the learned trial Court, as well as the one passed by the Revisional Court dated 27th of December, 2021, are not only illegal, improper and without jurisdiction, but same have caused miscarriage of justice as well.

4. Counter stands filed on behalf of the Respondents, stating therein that since the Petitioner has already availed the remedy of revision before the learned Principal Sessions Judge against the Order dated 4th of December, 2021 passed by the learned Magistrate, the Petitioner is not legally entitled to approach this Court challenging the Revisional Court's order in view of express bar to that effect provided under Section 397 (3) of the Code, which provides that, if an application under this Section has been made by any person, either to the High Court or to the Sessions Court, no further application by the same person shall be entertained. It is also pleaded that, although, the Petitioner has preferred the instant Petition under Section 482 of the Code, but the same has been done merely to dodge the aforesaid bar imposed under Section 397 (3) of the Code, when, as a matter of fact, the Petitioner could not be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court merely for impugning the Orde