Crl. Misc. No.M-21052 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-21052 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.07.2010 Amrik Singh ....Petitioner Versus Kulwinder Kaur ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of Order dated 06.02.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ratia and the Order dated 10.05.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Fatehabad, wherein, interim maintenance amounting to Rs.2000/- per month was awarded to respondent-Kulwinder Kaur. The wife of the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C for granting the maintenance allowance of Rs.5000/- per month. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ratia, vide Order dated 06.02.2010 granted Rs.2000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent herein. The petitioner challenged the Order of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ratia dated 06.02.2010 before the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Fatehabad. The Additional Sessions Judge-II, Fatehabad dismissed the revision petition. The petitioner has, therefore, Crl. Misc. No.M-21052 of 2010 2 challenged the Order dated 06.02.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ratia and the Order dated 10.05.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Fatehabad. It is contended that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C is false and frivolous and the respondent had herself left the house of the petitioner. It was pleaded that the petitioner was working as a labourer and he seldom got labour work and is finding hard to maintain himself. It was further stated that the petitioner is not the owner of 12 acres of land and the same is the ancestral property. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Krishnan and another vs. Krishnaveni and another reported as 1997(4) Supreme Court Cases 241 held that second revision before the High Court after dismissal of first one by the Court of Sessions is barred under Section 397(3). Admitteldy, the revision petition has been dismissed. The second revision being barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C., the petitioner cannot file the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C under the garb of second revision petition. No doubt, Hon'ble the Supreme Court did grant the liberty to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C even if the revision has been dismissed, however, the same is to be exercised sparingly and only to stop the perpatuating of injustice or in case of misuse of the process of law. No such ground has been pointed out in the present case. Hence, the discretionary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked in the facts of the present case when the revision petition already stands dismissed. Even on merits, it is a case, where only a meager amount of Rs. 2000/- has been granted to the wife as interim maintenance. Admittedly, the petitioner is able bodied person and is capable of doing labour work. The land of the petitioner may be an ancestral land but the Crl. Misc. No.M-21052 of 2010 3 petitioner does not deny that he has a share in the said ancestral land. Moreover, only interim maintenance has been granted vide Order dated 06.02.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ratia. Main petition is still pending. No merit. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 26.07.2010 JUDGE gurpreet