AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.—Petitioner was ordered by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Quilandy in M.C. 77 of 1987 to pay maintenance to his wife and children. He challenged it filing a revision before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The Sessions Judge held that there is absolutely no reason to differ from the view taken by the trial Court regarding the maintenance awarded to his wife and children. Petitioner challenges it u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the entire reasoning of the Sessions Judge is faulty and illegal.
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is akin to Section 151 CPC but with a difference that the High Court alone is having inherent powers under the former Code. Section 482 is intended to meet situation where the High Court can interfere to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. The powers can also be exercised if it is found necessary to give effect to any order under the Code. But the essential pre-requisites for invocation of the Section are:
(i) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(ii) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice;
(iii) That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.
Though terms of Section 482 are of wider amplitude, it has to be borne in mind that the powers cannot be applied to a fact situation where a Court has come to a finding on appreciation of evidence. Certainly Section 482 cannot be invoked to reopen a finding of fact. The Section does not enable the High Court to exercise the inherent powers unless it is found absolutely necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.
The Courts below on appreciation of evidence held that the first Respondent is entitled to claim maintenance for herself and children. The quantum of maintenance fixed by the trial Court has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. This being essentially a finding of fact cannot be interfered by this Court by invoking Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.
The petition is dismissed in limine.