•• sy 83^ HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SinaleSench : Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma. J. Apolicants 1. 2. 3. Cr.M.P.No.66/2006 Atwaro W/'o Jairam, Aged 45 years. Manoj Kumar, S/o Jairam Singh, Aged about 29 years. Bhanupratap S/o Jairam, Aaed about 18years. Ai! are residents of Viilage Laxmipur, Thana Pratappur Chowi-Bhatgaon. Tahsi! Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) versus Non-aD^licant Jairam Singh S/o Mohan Singh, Aged 51 years, Occupation-Teacher, R/o Viiiage Podhi Colliery, P. S. Chirmiri, Tahsi! Manendragarh, District Korjya (CG) Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Present : Shri A. K. Shukia, counsei for the appiicants. Shri Shrawan Agrawal, counsel for the non-applicant. ORAL QRDER (Passed on 08 day of August, 2008) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (in short "the eode") for quashment of the order dated 01-04-2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur, District Surguja in Misc. Criminai Case No.58/2003 on the jround that order of the Court below is bad and iltegal, hence, it deserves to be quashed. (2) Order impugned and the documents appended thereto are perused. (3) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that an ex parte order of maintenance has been passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur, .6S*;:;>>1»,. ^-' -t •^y.^ District Surguja on 03-02-1999 in Misc. Criminal Case No.38/90 against the respondent. The present applicants have filed the petition for recovery of the maintenance under Section 125(3) ofthe Cr.P.C. Notice has been issued to the respondent. The respondent has filed an appllcation for setting aside the ex pa/feorder ofmaintenance and the recovery proceedings. The main application for recovery of the amount of maintenance was fited by the applicants under Section 151 C.P.C. but the same was dismissed bv the Court below vide order -^& ,;g|F' impugned on the ground that it requires evidence and the applicants are residing in the house of the respondent and ttiey are aiso earning their livelihood. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that ex parte order passed by the Court below is enforceable in the eye of law and the Court was under obligation to quash the order of maintenance. (4) On the other hand, Shri Shrawan Agrawal, leamed counsel for the respondent submits that the present applicants have not fited the revisiora against the order impugned before the Sessions Judge and atternative remady was avaiiable with the applicants. An application filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. by the applicants has been dismissed, and therefore, the present oetition fiied under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. is not maintainabte. (5) The present appiicants have filed an application for recovery of the maintenance amount already awarded in favour of the applicants and also filed application for eariy action. The aforesaid application of the applicants was dismissed on the ground of necessity of evidence regarding the present residence of the applicants and their earnings. The proceeding pending before the trial Court was for recovery of amount of maintenance already awarded in such proceeding. The question of residence ofthe applicants and their eamings •z :.,~\ (iS» .'Siti Sf-;"' ^N^ were wholly irrelevant and rejection of the application on aforesaid ground was illegal. The trial Court was under obligation to proceed for recovery of the amount of maintenance. Although, the applicants are having alternative remedy to approach the Sessions Judge by filing revision petition but in case of patent illegality, invoking inherent jurisdiction is not barred, On the other hand, in- suitable cases inherent iurisdiction mav be 'mvoked to secure the ends of justice. This is a fit case for invoking inherent jurisdiction in terms of Section 482 oftheCrP.C. (6) Consequentiy, the petition is allowed. Order impugned is hereby quashed. The Court below is directed to proceed for recovery of the maintenance. However, the respondent is at tiberty to fite separate application for setting aside the ex parte order of maintenance and to iniUate separate proceeding. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Typane