<<"--^!..^ Petltioner HIGH COURT OF CHHATn80ARHAT^B!U PUR &^M.P. No. 150/2006 Suresh Kumar Sahu Age 28 S/o Shri Hariram Sahu R/o Sangwakapa P.0. Suda (Deori) P.S. Tah-Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS Respondent Sm.t. Shraddha Bai (chandanbai) Sahu •Age-25, W/o Shri Suresh Kumar Sahu •te/o Stari Dwarka Prasad Sahu, R/o Vffl J'ost-Jhajhpiui Kala P.S. and TaU Lonni Distt. BUaspur (C.G.). PETITIOM UNDER SBCTIOM 482 OF CODB OF CMMINAL PROCEDURE,1973. (8B :Hoa'ble Mr. T.P.Sharina, J.) Present: Shri Ashok Vaishnav, Advocate for the applicant, None for fhe responflent. ORAL-ORDER (Passedon 09/05/2008) This petition is directed against the order dated 9/10/2006 passed by Additional Session Judge MungeU Distnct Bfl^pur in crinunal revisiou No.- 69/06, afiBmung the order of inamtena&ce dated 2/12/2005 passed by Judfcial Magtetorate First Class, Miingeli in crimiual M.J.C. No. 13/03 whereby Rs. 1,000/- monthly mamteuance is awarded to the nou-applicant. Order is chaUenged on the grouad fhat noa-appUcant is residiag separately from. fhe appUcant without aay sufficient cause. The ..« order of aiamtenarice awarded to ^e non-appUcant is excessive and thereby Courts below failed to exeicise the jurisdiction vested on it. Order inipugned aad record ofthe Courts betow perused. <•• Y After takiug into consideration the grouad for liviug separately ofthe \ non-applicant, trial Court has awarded the inaintenaace of Rs. 1,000/- per inonfh saine was laaiiitaiaed ia the revision flled on behalf of thc appUcaat after dismissal of revision appUcaat has filed fhis revision tmder Section 482 offhe Cr.P.C. After evaluatiag the evidence available oa record Courts below has considered fhat non-a^plicaat is haviag sufficient cause for living separatefy and maiatenaace ofRs. 1,000f- per month is awarded. This is a revision uader Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for tfae quashment of the oider passed in revisfon exercise of power under Section 482 oftbe Code is in iiature ofexceptioa aad not as a rule ia fhe case of State of Pualab v. Kasturi Lal1 reported m 2004 CtLJ 3866 (38681 ®C1.Apex Court has observed tbafc- "Exerdse ofpower under S. 482 ofthe Code in a case of this nature is the exoeption and not the rule. The SecKon does not ocanfer any new powers on the High Court, It only saves the inherent power iphich the Court possessed before the enactmenf of the Code. It envisages three drcumstances zcnder which the inherent Jurisdiction may be exerdsed, namely (i) to give effect to cn arder under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, cmd ftii) to otherwise secure Ihe ends ofjustioe. It is neiiher possible nor desirdble to lay dov/n any ir^lejdble rule which would govem ihe exerdse of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can prowdefor atl cases that mccy possible arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent pov/ers apccrt from. expresa provisions of law w/ucfc are necessary for proper di'scharge offunctions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine wtwdiftnds expressionin ' Ihe section ivhich meraly reoogmzes cmd preserves inhereht pawers of the High Courts. Aff Caurts, whether dvil or ainunal possess, in the cibsence of any 'express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such pcfwers as are necessary to do the right ccnd to undo a ti/rong in oourse of administration ofjustioe. WhSe exerdsing pawers 1. a)04CrLJ 3866 (386811|SC(. •^ass'^' - 3- under the s^ction though wide has to be exerased sparingly, carefully and vnth (xcution and only when such exerdse is justified by the tests spedfiocSty laid down in fhe section ilself. S is to be exerdsed ex debito justitiae to do real and aubstcmliaJ jusiice for the aSministration ofwhich alone Courfs exist'. 7. As held in fhe matter ofRtdatU v. C. Ganesan2, reported inJlSS^ 68CC 326 fhe iaherent powers of fhe H^h Cotirt uader Section 482 ofthe Code are not substitiite for second revision. 8. In fhe present case applicant had availed fhc reiaedy available to him. The finding of the Courts below in the siuaiaer proceediag is neifher uajust nor improper, based on substantial evidence. Considering the present cost of liviag inaintenance of Rs, 1,000/- per inonth awarded is neither excessive''not unjust 9. I do not fiad any Ulegalily or infinnily ia fhe order impugned. The petition being devoid of aicrit is liable to bc dismissed it is hereby disnaissedat fhc stage ofadmission. 10. In view ofthe above, M. (Cr.)P. No. 2325/2006, I.A. No. 01/2008 and I.A. No. 02/2008 staad dismissed. Sd/° TP.Sha'gma Judge .^.. 3. (1009) 6SCO 336