JUDGMENT

This appeal in Crl.A.(MD)SRNo.32110 of 2023 is filed by the husband to set aside the maintenance order passed in M.C.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, confirmed in Cr.R.P.No.69 of 2019 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court, (FTC), Kumbakonam.

2. The appellant is the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent. The respondents filed M.C.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam. The appellant disputed both the marriage and the birth of the second respondent. He also filed Crl.MP.No.170 of 2016 before the learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, for conducting DNA Test on the second respondent. The report clearly stated that the appellant is the biological father of the second respondent. The first respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and R.W.4 father John Bosco and the birth certificate Ex.P.4 are marked. Considering all evidence, both the Courts below gave a finding that marriage between the appellant and the first respondent proved and paternity of the second respondent also proved. Thereafter, both the Courts below granted maintenance of Rs.6,000/-. Challenging the same, the appellant himself filed Crl.OP(MD)No.18452 of 2021 to set aside the above orders by disputing the marriage and the paternity of the second respondent.

3. This Court dismissed the said Crl.OP(MD)No.18452 of 2021 by passing the following order:-

“This criminal original petition has been filed by the appellant in person. Yesterday, there was no appearance on his behalf. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the appellant.

2. It is seen that the respondents herein filed M.C.No.8 of 2016 against the appellant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam. The said maintenance case was partly allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed revision petition before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam dismissed the said revision petition in Cr.R.P. No.69 of 2019 filed by the appellant herein. The appellant had lost before the Courts below.

3. There is a statutory bar against maintaining the second revision. Such a bar cannot be circumvented or overcome by filing a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Of course in an exceptional situation, such a petition will lie. But the case on hand does not fall in such a situation. The relationship between the appellant and the first respondent is not in dispute. The matter involves payment of maintenance. In such a case, the question of invoking inherent powers of this Court will not arise at all.

4. This criminal original petition is dismissed.”

4. By suppressing the above dismissal of Crl.OP(MD)No.18452 of

2021, the appellant now filed this Crl.A.(MD)SRNo.32110 of 2023 to set aside the above order of granting of maintenance. The Registry of this Court raised a question about the maintainability and returned the papers with the following endorsement:-

“It may be stated how this Appeal Petition is maintainable, against revision petition filed by the appellant”

5. Thereafter, the appellant has represented his papers on 11.09.2023 with the following endorsement:-

“Already the Hon'ble Mr.Justice. G.R.Swaminathan has dismissed the Crl.OP.(MD)No.18452 of 2021 U/s.482 would not invoke. The grievance of the appellant is only filing Appeal against the Criminal Revision.”

6. Therefore, the above case was posted before this Court under the caption for 'Maintainability'.

7. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, Criminal Revision is filed against the revisionable order and against the order of Criminal Appeal. The maintenance order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is revisionable order. The same is not appealable order.

8. Section 125 Cr.P.C., is a Social Welfare Legislation. It is intended to achieve Social Justice.

9. Therefore, the legislature provides only revision remedy against the granting of maintenan