O R D E R

Jabalpur, dated : 11.02.2021.

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner-husband seeking review/recall of order dated 26.08.2016 rendered in CRR No. 1685/2016 (Asha vs. H.S.Dhawan); whereby, this Court has allowed the petition preferred by the wife and set-aside the order of remand dated 03.06.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in CRR No. 3900107/2016 and restored the ex-parte order granting maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- pm passed by the Judicial Magistrate

First Class (JMFC), Sagar.

2- are that when the marital discords came to surface, the wife approached the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class and prefer an application (MJC No.11/2013) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance. The petitioner-husband was served and appeared before the Court but after sometime chose not to contest the application. The learned Judicial Magistrate passed ex parte order, allowed the application and awarded maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month.

3- 126(2) Cr.P.C. (MJC No. 22/2016) to set-aside the ex parte order. This application was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 30.04.2016 observing that the same was not within the limitation prescribed. The order was challenged by the petitioner by preferring a Criminal Revision No. 3900107/2016. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision vide order dated 03.06.2016, set-aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate, restored MJC No. 11/2013 and directed him (JMFC) to decide the same afresh.

4- approached this Court and preferred CRR No. 1685/2016. This Court issued notice to the husband vide order dated 27.07.2016 which was duly served. The matter was taken up by the Court on 26.08.2016, however, none appeared for the husband despite service, therefore, the Court heard the petitioner/wife and allowed the revision vide impugned order holding that the observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not according to law and set it aside.

5- present petition stating that no opportunity of hearing was granted to him, therefore, the order dated 26.08.2016 passed in CRR No. 1685/2016 be reviewed/recalled and he be granted an opportunity of hearing.

6- He preferred an SLP (Cri) Diary number 16935/2020, but in view of pendency of the present petition, withdrew the same on 13.10.2020.

7- maintainability of the petition. It is argued that the power of review or recalling its own order has not been conferred upon the Courts while exercising the criminal jurisdiction or dealing with the criminal matters except the powers conferred under Section 362 Cr.P.C. for limited purpose of correction of clerical or arithmetical errors. Since there is no clerical or arithmetical error in the impugned order, the petition preferred for recalling/review of the same is not maintainable.

8- petitioner/husband placed reliance on an order dated 09.10.2019 rendered in Review Petition No.1405/2017 [Jaiprakash Giri Gosawami vs. Smt. Neha Gosawami]; wherein, relying upon the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of P. K.Kunhimohammed v. Chenmala Nafeesa and another reported in 2004 CRI.L.J.1000, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that in the proceedings falling under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. (Section 125-128) [erroneously referred to as Chapter X in the order of, review is permissible. Relevant paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order reads as under:

“8. However, by the order under review, this Court had not either convicted or acquitted an accused. It had not discharged an accused either. It was an order whereby the direction for paying interim maintenance under Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was affirmed. The proceedings under Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not criminal proceedings. These proceedings are quasi civil in nature. Express provisions in Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure for dismissal and restoration of proceedings indicate that these proceedings are more civil in nature than cr