INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J. CRLMC. NO.1734 OF 2009 (Decided on 09.11.2010) BHARATI MAHANTA ……….. Petitioner. .Vrs. NARAHARI MAHANTA & ANR. ……….. Opp.Parties. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (ACT NO.2 OF 1974) – SEC.125 r/w Sec.397(3) & 482 Cr.P.C. For Petitioner - M/s. D.Panda, DPR Dhal, A.K.Parida, A.K.Budhia & S.R.Pati. For Opp.Parties - M/s. Manasi Mohapatra & U.K.Behera. I. MAHANTY, J. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-Bharati Mahanta, who has sought to challenge the order dated 08.04.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Criminal Revision No.16 of 2008 affirming the order dated 06.08.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Champua in CMC No.112 of 2007 whereby the learned S.D.J.M., Champua came to hold that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the Opposite Parties (father-in-law and mother-in-law of the widow petitioner) is maintainable in the eye of law. 2. Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, inter alia submitted that the Opposite Parties had only one child, namely, Amrut Charan Mahanta (husband of the present petitioner) who passed away on 27.08.1995. Late Amrut Charana Mahanta was working as a Peon in Badanai High School and on his demise, his widow, namely, the present petitioner, was provided with employment as a Peon under the Rehabilitation Scheme in place of her deceased husband. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties asserted that since the petitioner has availed all the death and pensionary benefits of her deceased husband and has been appointed as a Peon in place of her husband, she is liable to maintain her father-in-law and mother-in-law-Opposite Parties herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proceeding under Section 125(1) (d) Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated by the parents-in-law against their widow daughter- in-law. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is quoted herein below. “Section 125 Cr.P.C: Order of maintenance of wives, children and parents. (1) If any person leaving sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain: (a) His wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) His legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) His legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, of (d) His father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself.” It was further asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Opposite Parties are not the parents of the present petitioner but are in-laws and therefore, have not come under the purview of Section 125(1) (d) Cr.P.C. and proceeding thereunder is not maintainable against the petitioner (widow) by her parents-in-law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further asserted that the petitioner does not stand in the shoes of her deceased husband, since she has not inherited or enjoyed any share in the ancestral property and nowhere it is found that in case of death of the petitioner’s husband, his parents can claim maintenance against their daughter-in-law. Hence it is submitted that a widow daughter-in-law cannot be placed on the same footing as that of her deceased husband. It is also submitted that the present Opposite Parties have possess 10 Acres of landed properties and are cultivating the same by engaging labourers and earning near about rupees one lakh per year from cultivation. It is further asserted that the Opposite Party No.1 is maintaining four wives with whom he is enjoying the benefit of the properties and the petitioner has been deprived of her right to inherit her husband’s properties and shares in the ancestral property by the Opposite Party No.1. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties on the other hand contended that the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, since it is well settled that the inherent power of the High Court should not be used to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Court below and the power should be used sparingly and with circumspection and the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry with regard to the allegations made by the petitioner. Accordingly, it is submitted that since the learned S.D.J.M., Champua as well as the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar have recorded concurrent findings on the question of maintainability, a second revision in the garb of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties further submitted that the purview of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not only conceives of an order for maintenance but essentially, a measure of social justice with a view to protect persons who do not have sufficient means for survival. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Kausal v. Veena Kausal, AIR 1978 SC 1807, wherein the Division Bench constituting Hon’ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Hon’ble Justice D.A.Desai propounded the principle of law that “social justice is not constitutional Claptrap but fighting faith which enlivens Legislative texts with militant meaning which negative, illustrate the functional relevance of social justice as an aid to statutory interpretation.” Keeping this view, if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his father or mother who is unable to maintain himself or herself, an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties further submitted that Section 125 Cr.P.C which is entitles a neglected wife, child and parent, should be widely interpreted to include members of family since the term ‘family’ includes “the group of people related either by blood or marriage”. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties further submitted that in terms of Section 125(1) (d), even a married daughter is liable to maintain her parents, if they do not have any sufficient means to maintain themselves and there is no justifiable reason whatsoever for daughter-in-law not to be saddled with similar responsibility in the event of the death of a son especially when the deceased son’s widow has obtained all the death-cum-pensionary benefits including reappointment under the Rehabilitation Scheme on the death of a son. 5. In response to the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while it is correct that a second revision before the High Court is 2 prohibited by sub-section(3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C., yet, the inherent power of High Court is still available under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and while Section 397 of Cr.P.C. prohibits second revision in order to avoid frivolous litigation, but at the same time, the doors of the High Court to a litigant, who had lost before the Sessions Judge, is not completely closed and in “special cases” the bar under sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. could be lifted and the power of a High Court to entertain the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not subject to the prohibition under sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. and is capable of being invoked in an appropriate cases. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that while the learned S.D.J.M. came to a conclusion that the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the Opposite Parties-parents-in-law was maintainable, the learned Sessions Judge while affirming the said order, placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Labanya Senapati v. State of Orissa and another, 2006 35 OCR at page 114 and came to hold that since the present petitioner had obtained a job of Peon in place of the deceased husband under the Rehabilitation Scheme and, since, the petitioner step into the shoes of the deceased, she was legally bound to maintain the Opposite Parties. 7. It is clear from the impugned orders that both the trial court as well as lower Revisional Court have concurrent views on the maintainability of the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the issues as to whether or not the petitioner (widow daughter- in-law) would be liable to pay maintenance to the Opposite Parties (parents-in-law) would have to be gone into at the trial. 8. In my considered view, in the present case, since the maintainability of a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was the subject matter of challenge and both the Courts below having given their concurrent views regarding maintainability of such a proceeding, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is clearly not maintainable since a second revision is clearly prohibited under sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. Although the present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the power vested in the High Court therein is not subject to Section 397 Cr.P.C., yet I am of the considered view that no special case has been made out by the petitioner to entertain the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., especially when the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. remains pending for adjudication on merits. 9. Accordingly, I find no merit in the present application and, therefore, the CRLMC stands dismissed. The trial Court is directed to take up the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. expeditiously and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment on the basis of evidence produced by the parties and without in any manner being influenced by any observations made by this Court in course of the challenge made by the petitioner to the maintainability of the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Application allowed. 3