Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Pankajkumar Chimanlal Bhatt, filed a Criminal Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) challenging an order dated 5th April 2006 passed by the learned Fifth Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, which rejected his application for stay of proceedings in Criminal Revision Applications pending before that court. The background of the case is that the first respondent, Smt. Maya Pankaj Bhatt (the wife), had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC against the applicant (husband) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nashik, seeking maintenance. The applicant contested the application on the ground that the first respondent was not his lawfully wedded wife. By judgment and order dated 9th April 2003, the learned Magistrate rejected the wife's application, concluding that she had failed to establish a valid marriage. The wife then filed a criminal revision application before the Sessions Court challenging the Magistrate's order. During the pendency of the revision, the applicant filed an application for stay of the revision proceedings, which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 5th April 2006. Aggrieved by this refusal, the applicant approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties. The Court noted that the order refusing stay was an interlocutory order and that the Sessions Judge had the discretion to decide the revision on its merits. The Court further observed that the applicant had an alternative remedy by way of a revision against the final order if the revision was decided against him. The High Court held that no case was made out for interference under Section 482 CrPC and dismissed the application. The Court also noted that the wife's application under Section 125 CrPC was maintainable even if the marriage was disputed, and the revisional court would decide the issue.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - Interlocutory Orders - The High Court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to set aside an order of the Sessions Judge refusing to stay proceedings in a criminal revision application. The Court held that the order refusing stay was an interlocutory order and that the Sessions Judge had the discretion to decide the revision on merits. The applicant had an alternative remedy by way of a revision against the final order. (Paras 1-5) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 125 - Maintenance - Validity of Marriage - The Magistrate had rejected the wife's application under Section 125 CrPC on the ground that she failed to prove a valid marriage. However, the Sessions Judge, in revision, had not yet decided the matter. The High Court observed that the wife's application under Section 125 CrPC was maintainable even if the marriage was disputed, and the revisional court would decide the issue. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court under Section 482 CrPC can interfere with an order of the Sessions Judge refusing to stay proceedings in a criminal revision application challenging a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Criminal Application, holding that no case was made out for interference under Section 482 CrPC. The order of the Sessions Judge refusing stay was interlocutory and the applicant had an alternative remedy.
Law Points
- Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to challenge interlocutory orders
- Section 125 CrPC maintenance application maintainable even if marriage is disputed
- Revisional court has power to stay proceedings pending revision
