Judgment:
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.
1. Opposite party (husband) in Misc. Case No. 13 of 1986 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Jaypore is the petitioner who challenged the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial magistrate granting a sum of Rs. 200/ - (Rupees Two hundred only) per month as maintenance against him in favour of the opposite parties, the wife and daughter aged one year, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:
The present opposite party No. 1 (housewife) alleged to have married the petitioner who is an Amin working in Upper Colab Project drawing a sum of Rs. 450/- per month. According to the opposite party No. 1 since there was failure in payment of dowry by her father to her husband, there was disention in the family and she was tortured by the members of her in-laws including her husband and was driven out from her matrimonial house with her child. She having no income of her own, filed the said Misc. Case in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jeypore claiming a sum of Rs. 500/- as maintenance for herself and her only daughter.
3. The husband (petitioner), however, took the plea that the child was not his and was begotten by another by name Narayan prior to the marriage of the present opposite party No. 1 with him and after this fact came to light in the month of May 1985, a lady doctor was asked to examine her who had opined that she was carrying a child of above four months in the foetus. The petitioner became suspicious about the paternity of the child as the marriage was concluded between the parties on 1-3-85. In the presence of the father of opposite party No. 1, the matter was settled and an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 wherein the opposite party No. 1 admitted that the child was not that of the present petitioner and was begotten by another prior to the marriage and she would like to go away from the house (her matrimonial house) with the child so that both the parties may treat this marriage to be rescinded and each of them would have the option to take another spouse according to his/her wish. The present petitioner, therefore, claimed that the present opposite party No. 1 having left the matrimonial house voluntarily and the child being that of another, he would not be liable in law to pay any sum as maintenance to the opposite parties under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. The trial Court, however, came to hold that the wife was pregnant by more than four months on the date of examination which took place during the month of May 1985, cannot be accepted without examining the doctor who was in fact not examined.
5. Regarding Ext. A, the agreement, the opposite party No. 1 has stated that this was obtained from her by coercion and it was not voluntarily executed by her. The trial Court accepted the contention of the present opposite party No. 1. The admitted fact in this case is that there was marriage between the parties on 1-3-85 and the child was born during wedlock in which event unless the husband has the duty in law to maintain the opposite parties (wife & daughter), the liability of the petitioner-husband continues and he is liable to pay the maintenance as would be determined by the Court. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, I do not find any reason to interfere with this order firstly because the petitioner had preferred a revision under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jeypore in Misc. Case No. 13 of 1986 praying maintenance. He having lost in the revision before the Addl. Sessions Judge, this Misc. Case has been filed challenging the revisional order of the Asst. Sessions Judge when no appeal or revision is provided against such order in the Cr. P.C. the inherent power of this Court can not be invoked at the instance of the same party. This is an established view as was held in Criminal Revision No. 410 of 1988 (Satyanarayan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa) decided on 9-1-92 by this Court.
6. It has been also held in the case reported in AIR 1978 SC 47 : 1978 Cri LJ 165, (Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra) that certain principles have to be kept in mind in relation to the exercise of inherent power of the High Court which read as follows (at page 168 of Cri LJ):
(1) 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;
(2) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice;
(3) That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.
7. The petitioner in this Criminal Misc. Case preferred under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has prayed to revise the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision preferred against the order passed by the learned S.D. J.M. to meet the ends of justice. When the intention of the legislature, is apparent in the Criminal Procedure Code that an order under Section 125, Cr. P.C. can only be revised once in a proceeding for revision and no second revision is provided, such a petition under inherent power is not maintainable. While dismissing the instant case as not maintainable, I also indicate that the impugned order otherwise is not to be interfered with as devoid of any merit. Criminal Misc. case is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.