B.S.A. Swamy, J.
1. The question that arises for consideration of this Court in this criminal revision is whether the Sessions Court in exercise of its revisional powers under Sections 397, Cr. P.C. can remand the case for retrial which has arisen under Section 125, Cr. P.C.
2. The facts in this case are not in dispute. The respondent initiated proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. alleging that she is the wife of the petitioner and one Laxmi Narasamma has born to her during the wedlock with the petitioner and as the petitioner neglected to maintain her even though having sufficient means to maintain, she is entitled to receive maintenance from the petitioner. The claim of the respondent was contested by the petitioner by contending that he never married the respondent and the daughter Laxmi Narasamma, who was alleged to have been born to the respondent during the wedlock, is not his child.
3. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground that the respondent failed to produce any documentary or oral evidence to prove the factum of marriage. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent carried the matter in revision to the District Court and at the time of hearing, she sought permission of the Court to file three documents viz. (1) Secondary School Certificate, (2) Study Certificate, and (3) Employment Registration Card of the daughter as additional evidence and to decide the revision on merits. On receiving the above documents, the Revisional Court felt that an opportunity should be given to both the parties to prove the factum of marriage and remanded the matter to the Magistrate for fresh disposal.
4. Questioning the said orders, the present Revision Petition was filed by the petitioner. The main contention of the petitioner is that as the proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. cannot be termed as criminal in nature, the question of remanding the matter by the Revisional Court for fresh disposal does notarise. In support of his contention, he tried to place reliance on Section 398 of Cr. P.C. wherein the powers of the Revisional Court are enumerated. It is useful to extract Section 398 at this juncture.
'Power to order inquiry : On examining any record under Section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or Sub-section (4) of Section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged :
Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made.'
5. The Counsel for (he petitioner .Mr-. Suresh strongly placed reliance on the words 'direct any Subordinate Magistrate to make further inquiry into any com- plaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or Sub-section (4) of Section 204 or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged' and contended thai the complaint was not dismissed either under Section 203 or under Section 204(4) and as the proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. cannot be termed as criminal in nature the petitioner cannot be said that he was charged with any offence. Hence the question of putting him on retrial does not arise. He also argued that negligence or refusal to maintain the wife itself does not constitute an offence. It is only when the Court passes an order awarding maintenance, the failure on the part of the person concerned to pay maintenance is termed as offence and in such an event alone, the Court can proceed to recover the maintenance as a fine by issuance of warrant and may sentence such person for his failure topay maintenance after execution of the warrant to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made. It is true that the proceedings contemplated under Section 125, Cr. P.C. are intended to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to society in respect of his wife and children and now parents also, so that they are not left as beggars and destitutes on the scrap-heap of society and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate is preventive and not remedial and certainly not punitive. But at the same time, it should be kept in mind that Chapter IX of Cr. P.C. deals with the maintenance of wife, children and parents and when once a complaint is lodged by the neglected person, though the complaint need not be authenticated by way of sworn statement, for all other proceedings, the procedures contemplated under criminal law are made applicable to this proceeding. In fact the Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that against the orders of the Magistrate a revision shall lie to the Sessions Court under Section 397, Cr. P.C. When once that fact is admitted, the revision cannot be treated as an empty formality unless intended to render justice to the needy person. Under Section 397 Sessions Court is empowered to exercise all or any of the powers conferred by the High Court under Section 401(1), Cr. P.C. and under the above provision, the High Court is empowered in its discretion to exercise any of its powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 Cr. P.C. or on Court of Sessions by Section 307, Cr.P.C, In other words, the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court and by virtue of Section 399, the Sessions Courts are given the powers of an Appellate Court in deciding the revision petitions. Section 386, Cr. P.C. deals with the powers of the Appellate Court and under Section 386(a) in any appeal arising from an order of acquittal, the Appellate Court is empowered to reverse such order and direct that further inquiry be made, or that the accused be retried or committed for trial, as the case may be, or find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to Saw. From this, it is seen that the powers of the Appellate Court are wide enough and the Appellate Court is given the power not only to reverse the finding or remanding the matter for retrial, but also given the power to exercise the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and pass sentence in accordance with law. When once it is conceded that the powers of the Revisional Court are synonymous with the powers of the Appellate Court 1 am of the view that the Revisional Court is empowered to remand the matter for fresh trial by the Trial Court instead of embarking upon itself making an enquiry and pass an order one way or the other. Hence, I hold that there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that the Revisional Court is not having the power to remand the matter as the complaint would not be dismissed under Section 203 or Section 204 or as petitioner was not an accused of any offence punishable under Indian Panal Code by relying on Section 398, Cr. P.C.
6. The matter can be viewed from onother angle also. While Section 397 Cr. P.C. enumerates the functions of the Revisional Court and the procedure to be followed by the Revisional Court under Section 398, by virtue of Section 398, powers of Appellate Court were conferred specifically on the Sessions Judge while exercising the revisional powers. In facia Division Bench of'this Court in Puvvula Abbulu v. The State Station House Officer, (1) 1975 Crl.L.J. 139, held :
'Now under the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 there have been some radical departures from the Code of 1893, The powers of the Sessions Judge to interfere in revision are no longer confined to cases of improper discharge and improper dismissals of complaints. Under Section 399(1) and (2) of the present Code the Sessions judge, in the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for fay himself, may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under Section 401(1). Section 401(1) enables the High Court to exercise in its revisional jurisdiction any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390, 391 etc.'
7. In fact even after Act 66 of 1984, the Family Courts Act, 1984 came into force while making a provision for transfer of all cases pending on the file of the Magistrate under Chapter IX of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Under Section 8(c) of the Act, a provision is made in Section 10(2) of the Act only to follow the procedure prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code for all those proceedings. Even on the admission of the Counsel for the petitioner himself, the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and the orders passed by the Magistrate are amenable for revisional jurisdiction. When once that position is conceded, all other provisions of Cr. P.C. are applicable with equal force to the proceedings seeking maintenance.
8. For all these reasons, I reject the contention of the petitioner that the order of Sessions Court in Cr.R.P. No. 92/91 is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed.
9. As the complaint is of the year 1989, the Magistrate is directed to take up the matter for trial on day-to-day basis and dispose of the same within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.