Mohd. Hanif vs Aminabai - 1986 Supreme(MP) 352

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : R. C. Bhatnagar.
For the Respondent: S. S. Varma.

Headnote:(1) Criminal P. C. 1973 – S. 482 – inherent powers under – cannot be invoked like appellate or revisional powers – these powers are designed to achieve public purpose.
       (2) Criminal P. C, 1973 – S. 125 – application for maintenance under – pleading like civil case not necessary.
       (3) Criminal P. C, 1973 – S. 125 – proceedings under – husband has to prove his income.
       (4) Law – though justice has to be administered according to law – ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law.
        Short Note
       1. This is an application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. 1973 (for short 'the Code') for quashing the order dated 1 – 2 – 1985 passed by the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Criminal Revision No. 68/84 confirming the order dated 23 – 8 – 84 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class; Jaora in proceedings under section 125 of the Code.
       2. The non – applicant No.1 is the wife and the non – applicant No.2 the daughter of the petitioner. By his order dated 23 – 8 – 84 the learned Magistrate bas in their favour made a monthly allowance of Rs. 250/ – making it payable from 9 – 5 – 1983 which is the date of the application. The petitioner has contracted a second marriage on 25 – 4 – 1983.
       3. Held : The main question to which the Court exercising discretionary revisional jurisdiction has to address itself is whether substantial justice has been done in the case and interference is warranted only in exceptional cases where it seems that some real and substantial injustice has been done.
       4. The contentions of the petitioner that his wife Aminabai. Non – applicant No.1 did not return to his residence though called and had herself consented for his second marriage, do not, in the face of the admitted second marriage by him, disentitle her to claim allowance for monthly maintenance. His contentions that there is no pleading or proof regarding the non – applicants inability to maintain herself and that there is no proof that his monthly income is Rs. 500/ – are clearly devoid of merit. A perusal of paragraph 2 of the deposition of the non – applicant Aminabai furnishes a complete answer to these contentions. In Mohmmad Inayatully Khan's Case (1985 M. P. Weekly Notes 365) it has been held that rules of pleadings in civil cases are not attracted in proceedings under section 125 of the Code. As pointed out in the decision in Vijay Shankar's case (1984 M. P. Weekly Notes 62) it is actually for the husband not for the wife to furnish reliable proof of his income as the latter is not expected to know his exact income.
       5. On perusal of the record, I find that the impugned order cannot be characterised as incorrect, illegal or improper. It rightly affirms the order passed by the trial Magistrate which is sustainable on the material on record.
       6. The saving of inherent powers under section 482 of the Code is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose. Label of the petition is immaterial and the powers are to be used for the purposes specified in the provision. Though justice has got to be administered according to law. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law. As pointed out in the decision in Raj Kapoor's case (AIR 1980 SC 258) the amplitude of the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code remain unaffected by section 397 ibid. However, the remedy there under is not to be resorted to like the remedy of appeal or revision under section 482 of the Code. The High Court alone may pass orders ex – debito justitiate in cases where grave and substantial injustice has done. As pointed out in the decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi's case (AIR 1983 SC 67) the extraordinary power under section 482 of the Code has to be exercised sparingly. It is true that reasons have not been recorded for making monthly allowance from the date of the application, no interference is, however, called for on this count as the application itself was promptly made and amount of arrears involved is not for a long period. The decision in Lachhmani's case (1983 MPWN 148) is clearly distinguishable on facts. The impugned order does not bring about a situation which can be characterised as an abuse of the process of the Court. It cannot also be said that interference by this Court is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of justice. 1985 MPWN 365, 1984 MPWN 62, AIR 1980 SC 258, AIR 1983 SC 67 relied on. 1983 MPWN 148 distinguished.
       Revision dismissed.