IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 106 of 2003 Reserved on 18.11.2008 Date of Decision: 25-11-2008 _______________________________________________________ Smt.Veena Kumari Petitioner Versus Rajinder Singh Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?. No. For the Petitioner : Mr. G.C.Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Amardeep, Advocate. For the respondent. : Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J The petitioner-wife has challenged the dismissal of her application, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband by the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 1-5-2000 which was unsuccessfully assailed by her before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No.9-S/10 of 2000 decided on 1-7-2007, by moving the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner-wife moved an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for herself and also for and on behalf of her minor son Master Akshay on the ground that the behaviour of her husband (respondent) right from the very beginning remained indifferent. She was maltreated and the respondent did not provide any necessity of life to her even when she was pregnant. She had to leave the matrimonial Whether the reporters of local newspapers are allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. - 2 - home and resided with her parents where she delivered a male child and thus sought maintenance at the rate of rupees 500/-. The respondent-husband resisted the above contentions and averred in his reply that she had left her matrimonial home of her own will. Despite best efforts made by him to take her back, she refused to join his company. Thus, she was not entitled for maintenance sought for. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after recording the evidence of the parties vide order passed on 1.5.2000 awarded rupees 500/- per month to her minor son whereas, dismissed the application qua the petitioner- wife on the ground that the respondent-husband had made several efforts to bring her back to the matrimonial home but either she refused or her parents did not send her. There was no justifiable cause for her not to join the company of her husband. These findings were endorsed by the learned Sessions Judge. Shri G.C. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Shri Amar Deep, Advocate has vehemently argued that this Court has wider powers to interfere into the impugned orders while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to come to the conclusion whether the courts below were justified to decline the maintenance to the petitioner-wife. Further, according to him, the evidence can be re-appraised in order to find out whether there was reasonable and sufficient cause for the petitioner-wife not to join the company of the respondent when she apprehended danger to her life. Contra, Shri Ramesh Verma, learned counsel for the respondent has forcefully argued that neither there is any abuse of process of law nor the ends of justice require for any interference in the impugned orders as it is based upon sound reasoning and further, there are concurrent findings of facts and there is nothing on record to show that the Courts below have committed any error therein. He further ventilated that the respondent - 3 - along with his co-villagers had gone to the house of his in-laws and made every effort to bring her back but she refused and assigned no reasons, even her parents did not permit her to join the matrimonial company. Therefore, in these circumstances, no interference is called for. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record. As a matter of fact, powers under Article 227 of the Constitution are very wide and extensive over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Shamshad Ahmad –v- Tilak Raj Bajaj (deceased) Through Lrs. 2008 (10) JT SC-56 that such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a Court of Appeal or a Court of Error. It can neither review nor reappreciate nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate Court or inferior Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior Court or the Tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate Courts and inferior Tribunals within the limits of law. The statutory remedy was availed by the petitioner wife by filing the revision before the Sessions Judge. There is no further remedy available under the Code. The petitioner-wife has approached this Court by filing the present petition wherein even I do not find any error or abuse of the process of the Court for its interference while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code. There is a concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the Courts below. It is not a case rarest of the rare. There is no dispute that the petitioner-wife lived with respondent-husband for a period of less than a year. Thereafter she went to the house of her parents in the month of August, 1995. Ever since she is living with them. The - 4 - petitioner, PW2 Ram Dass, the father of the petitioner, PW3 Naresh Kumar have clearly admitted that the respondent-husband had visited the house of her parents two-three times to take her back but she refused to join the company of the husband. She categorically stated that even if the respondent would come to take her to her matrimonial house, she would not join his company. Sub-section (4) of Section 125 provides that a wife shall not be entitled to receive any allowance from her husband under this section if she refused to live with her husband without any sufficient cause. Therefore, in these circumstances, when the fact of her maltreatment as alleged stands not proved and her refusal to join the company of the respondent is without any sufficient reasons, she is not entitled for the maintenance. Therefore, the impugned order requires no interference. As such, the petition is dismissed. (Surinder Singh) Judge. November 25, 2008. (bm) - 5 - Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.