Vijaykumar vs Pandurang

A.I.S. Cheema, J.—Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P. for Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 has not appeared inspite of service. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally at the admission stage.

Learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that Respondent No. 1 is father of Petitioner, who, alongwith stepmother of the present Petitioner, filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010 for maintenance u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C."). The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded partly allowed the Application and granted maintenance amount of Rs.5000/- per month to Respondent No. 1 but declined the same as far as stepmother of the Petitioner was concerned.

Criminal Revision No. 5 of 2012 was filed by the Petitioner in the Sessions Court, but the same was dismissed and the Judgment of the trial Court has been maintained and thus the present Writ Petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the act of Respondent No. 1 in not making other two sons as party Respondents in the maintenance proceedings, should be treated as picking and choosing, for harassment of the Petitioner. According to the counsel, the maintenance should have been declined. The counsel submitted that the Petitioner has two sons, studying in the college and his own family to take care and that the maintenance amount granted is too high.

Respondent No. 1 has not appeared inspite of service.

Learned A.P.P. submitted that the present proceedings of Writ Petition after Revision has been dismissed, has limited scope.

Learned counsel for Petitioner did not point out from the record that the Petitioner filed copy of his pay-slip in the trial Court. Simply saying that the Petitioner is primary teacher is not justification to conclude that Rs.5000/- per month awarded, is an exorbitant amount. Judgment of Judicial Magistrate First Class, shows that present Petitioner had claimed that he has to fulfill needs of his family. The Court considered admission of Petitioner that his salary is Rs.25,000/- per month and thus fixed the maintenance amount. The contention being raised that all other sons not made party to the proceedings, is aspect which was looked into by the Courts below. Nothing provides that the father should make all children party to such proceedings. Only because father has not sought maintenance from his other children, does not absolve Petitioner from his liability.

Invoking writ jurisdiction is not substitute to what is inherently another Revision Petition. Spirit of Section 397(3) of Cr.P.C. cannot be ignored. In order to invoke extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, it would be necessary to show apparent error of law, so as to interfere in the impugned orders. In the proceedings of Writ Petition this Court cannot re-examine the evidence and come to a different conclusion without there being error law. The orders passed are not demonstrated to be illegal and no interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court.

For the reasons stated above, Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.