1990 Supreme(MP) 30

V. D. Gyani, J.
Manohar v. Kamlabai.
M. Cr, Case No. 1001 of 1989 (I); Decided on 16-1-1990.

Headnote:(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 - S. 482-inherent powers under-none of the object sought to achieve likely to be served-powes cannot be exercised.

        (l) Criminal P. C., 1913 - S. 125 - proceedings under - customary divorce from previous husband taken place -wife can maintain maintenance proceeding.

       

       ¼1½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973&/kkjk 482&varfuZfgr ‘kfDr;k¡&fdlh Hkh okafNr mn~ns‘; dh miyfC/k dh iwfrZ dh laHkkouk ugha&‘kfDr;k¡ iz;qDr ugha dh tk ldrhA

       ¼2½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973&/kkjk 125&dkZokgh&iwoZ ifr ls :f<+ xr fookg&foPNsn gqvk&iRuh Hkj.k&iks"k.k dh dk;Zokgh pyk ldrh gSA

        By this petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 7-3-1989, passed by the Sessions Judge, Dewas, in Criminal Revision No. 50 of 1987, thereby partly allowing the petition and modifying operation of the order passed by the trial Court, making it operative from the date on which the order was passed rather than the date of application. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has come up before this Court under section 482, Cr. P. C.

        A mere reading of the section would go to show that the inherent powers of the Court can be invoked only in three situations indicated therein namely ; (1) in order to give effect to an order passed under the Code, or (2) to prevent abuse of process of the Court, and (3) to secure the ends of justice. None of these Objects can be served by interfering with the impugned order.

        Held: The only point raised is about validity of the marriage. Shri Dave contended that the basic requirement for invoking section 125, Cr.P.C. by the respondent was not fulfilled, inasmuch as she failed to prove that she was the married wife of the petitioner. This point was also raised before the lower revisional Court. In the case of Sumitradevi v. Bhikan -(1985) 1 SCC 637 and in Smt. Yamunabai v. Anantrao (A. I. R. 1988 SC 644) the Supreme Court has considered the applicability of personal law in matters relating to grant of maintenance allowance under section 125, Cr. P. C. and it cannot be allowed to stretch to such an extent as to defeat the very purpose of the provision of law, which is essentially made to prevent vagrancy amongst women and children. Going through the impugned order it is also evident that a customary divorce, known as Chhod Chhitti had taken place between Kamlabai and her first husband Tikamchand, who again admitted that this kind of divorce was recognised by the community to which they belong.

        Without entering into the legalism suffice it to note that so far as the applicants marriage with Kamlabai was concerned, it was duly established and was not disputed on any count. In the circumstances, the order passed against the petitioner does not call for any interference, that too by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under section 482, Cr. P. C. (1985) 1 SCC 637 and AIR 1988 SC 644 followed. Petition dismissed.