JUDGMENT
A. Hanumantha, J.
1. This is an application filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the orders in Crl. Revision Case No. 18/93 on the file of the District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor, confirming the order of the Munsiff Magistrate, Vayal- padin M.C. No. 3/91.
2. The facts in brief are as follows :
The petitioner herein is the husband of the 1st respondent herein. She filed a petition under Section 125(1), Cr.P.C. in M.C. No. 3/91 for granting maintenance alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein, that she was subjected to cruelty, that she has been driven out of the house and that he married another lady and living with her. The petitioner resisted that application. He denied the factum of marriage with the 1st respondent. He contended that the 1st respondent filed the said petition at the instance of one Srihari, who is the husband of his sister, and against whom, his sister initiated maintenance proceedings, that he married one Tulasamma and he is living with her. He also pleaded that he has no capacity to pay the maintenance. He further pleaded that the 1st respondent is the concubine of his paternal uncle and that she is earning Rs. . 25/- per day. To substantiate their respective contentions, on behalf of the wife, PWs. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs. P-l and P-2 were marked. On behalf of the husband, RW. 1 to 7 were examined and Exs. R-l and R-2 were marked. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate held that the 1st respondent herein is the wife of the petitioner and that she is entitled for maintenance and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- per month towards her maintenance from the date of his order, dated 4.3.1993. Aggrieved by that order, he petitioner-husband preferred a revision, to the Court of District & Sessions judge, Chittoor in Cr. P.C. No. 18/93. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor by his order, dated 30.11.1994 confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the revision case. Aggrieved by that order, the husband-petitioner has come up with this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order of the District & Sessions Judge, confirming the order of the Magistrate granting maintenance to the 1st respondent herein.
3. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that by virtue of Section 399(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, no second revision lies to the High Court against the order of the Sessions Judge passed in a revision case and that the order of the learned Sessions Judge has become final. The learned Counsel for the respondent further contends that the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is also not maintainable as the order of the Sessions Judge in revision case has become final. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in “Dharmpal and Ors. v. Smt. Ramsree and Ors.”, , and “Deepti @ Arathi Rai v. AkilRaiand Ors.”, . In “Dharmpal and Ors. v. Smt. Ramsree and Ors., (referred above) Their Lordships of Supreme Court in para No. 4 have laid down the law thus :
“The question that falls for our consideration now is whether the High Court could have utilised the power under Section 482 of the Code and entertain the second revisional application at the instance of the 1st respondent. Admittedly, the 1st respondent has preferred a criminal application being Criminal Revision Case No. 7180/78 to the Sessions Court against the order passed by a Magistrate on 17th October, 1975 with-drawing the attachment. The Sessions Judge had dismissed the said case on 14 May, 1979. Section 399(3) bars the second revision application by the same party. It is now well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are barred by the Court. Hence, the High Court has clearly erred in entertaining the second revision at the instance of the 1st respondent. On this short ground itself, the impugned order of the High Court can be set aside.”
In the second decision of the Supreme Court in “Deepthi Alias Arathi Rai v. Akil Rai and Ors.”, (referred to above), Their Lordships of Supreme Court held thus :
“Second revision application, after the dismissal of the first one by Sessions Court is not maintainable and that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Courts.”
4. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate allowed the maintenance petition filed by the 1st respondent and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and the revision preferred by the husband in Crl. Revision Case No. 18/93 had been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, confirming the order of the Magistrate. In the light of the above two decisions of the Supreme Court, the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
5. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in “Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa“, 1994(4) S.C.C. 41, for the proposition of law that Section 482, Cr.P.C. is not a bar for invoking jurisdiction of the High Court if in the given circumstances, it is found to be necessary to prevent abuse of process of the Court. In the above said case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held thus :
“While it is true that availing of the remedy of revision to the Sessions Judge under Section 399 does not bar a person from invoking the power of a High Court under Section 482, it is equally true that the High Court should not act as a Second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers. While exercising its inherent powers in such a matter, it must be conscious of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his revisionary power in the matter. The High Court should interfere only where it is satisfied that if the complaint is allowed to be proceeded with it would amount to abuse of process of Court or that interest of justice otherwise call for quashing of the charges.”
Under this decision of the Supreme Court also, there cannot be any doubt in respect of the prohibition to file second revision against the revisional orders of the Sessions Judge. However, the High Court while exercising powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C, should interfere only when it is satisfied that there is abuse of process of Court or that the interest of justice otherwise call for quashing of the proceedings. In the instant case, on a careful consideration of the evidence on record it cannot be said that the order of the maintenance granted by the lower Court and confirmed by the Sessions Court is abuse of process of Court or that the interest of justice call for quashing of the said order. On merits also, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the 1st respondent-wife amply proves her marriage with the petitioner-husband, and that she was subjected to cruelty and that she was driven out of the house and that the petitioner married another lady and is living with her. The 1st respondent also established the capacity of the petitioner to pay the maintenance. The quantum of maintenance granted at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month is also not excessive.
6. I do not find any illegality in the findings given by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Revisional Court. Thus, on merits also, the order of the Trial Court as confirmed by the Sessions Judge is not liable to be set aside.
7. In the light of my above discussions, I do not find any merits in this petition. The petition is dismissed.