JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Satish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shyam Sunder Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31.01.2006 and 22.01.2004 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Banda and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, North-East Railway, District Banda respectively.

3. The facts relevant for the purpose of this writ petition are as below:-

The respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from her husband, which was dismissed on 31.01.1995 on certain grounds; the criminal revision filed by the respondent/wife was also dismissed; the respondent no. 2 again moved a second application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on a premise that there have been change in circumstances, therefore, she is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband and that second application case no. 1490/2003 came to be allowed directing her husband to pay Rs. 1,500/-per month; the opposite party aggrieved by the above order dated 22.01.2004, preferred a criminal revision no. 30/2004 which was dismissed on 31.01.2006, now the petitioner husband is before this court challenging the order passed by the trial court as well as the order passed by the revisional court.

4. The main crux of the argument of the petitioner is that the respondent's wife never challenged the order of the revisional court by which the earlier order passed by the trial court rejecting the first application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was affirmed, therefore, the order passed against the wife became final and therefore, the matter cannot be agitated again by filing another application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; it is argued that the entire proceeding subsequently initiated by respondent no. 2 is barred by principle of constructive res-judicata and hit by the provisions of Constitution of India, therefore, it is liable to be quashed; it is further argued that the subsequent orders granting maintenance is passed ignoring the factual and legal positions; the learned trial court as well as the revisional court passed an illegal order, therefore the orders cannot be sustained.

5. The contentions of the petitioner is opposed by respondent no. 2 on the ground that in a judicial order this Court is not allowed to interfere while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition should be dismissed at the very threshold. To stress above point. Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and another vs. Chhabi Nath and others, (2015) 5 SCC 423 has been referred to.

The apex court in the aforesaid judgment held that writ of certiorari lies to bring decisions of an “Inferior court”, tribunal, public authority or any other body of persons for review so that the court may determine whether they should be quashed or not. However, expression “interference” the court is not referable to the judicial courts Writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts. The Apex Court in para 25 further observed as below:-

“25. All courts in the jurisdiction of a High Court are subordinate to it and subject to its control and supervision under Article 227. Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all High Courts. Broad principles of writ jurisdiction followed in England are applicable to India and a writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of Tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts. There are no precedents in India for High Courts to issue writs to subordinate courts. Control of working of subordinate courts in dealing with their judicial orders is exercised by way of appellate or revisional powers or power of s