A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment which had dismissed a plea by a woman against the family court's order on interim maintenance on the ground that it was not maintainable as the appellant-wife had a remedy of a revision under Section 397 CrPC.

 

"The approach of the High Court in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 CrPC on the hyper technical ground that she had to avail the remedy of revision cannot be appreciated because the same has unnecessarily compelled the appellant to approach this court by way of this appeal filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India," the bench said.

 

The court pointed out in that in the case of Madhu Limaye Vs The State of Maharashtra (1977) it was held that the label of a petition filed by an aggrieved party is immaterial and the High Court can always examine the controversy in an appropriate case in exercise of its inherent powers.

 

In Prabhu Chawla Vs State of Rajasthan and Another (1977), the top court pointed out that it examined the relevant scope of Section 482 CrPC and Section 397 CrPC and held that nothing in CrPC, not even Section 397, can affect the amplitude of the inherent powers preserved in so many terms by the language of Section 482 CrPC.

 

"The inherent powers should not invade areas set apart for specific powers conferred under CrPC but there is no total ban on the exercise of inherent powers where abuse of process of Court or other extraordinary situation warrants exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The limitation is self ¬restraint, nothing more. Availability of alternative remedy of criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC, by itself, cannot be a good ground to dismiss an application under Section 482 CrPC," the court had then said.

 

In the instant matter, the bench felt that even if the High Court was of the view that the appellant should have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC for seeking enhancement of interim maintenance, it ought not to have non-suited the appellant only on the ground of alternative remedy.

 

"The judicious approach would have been to convert the petition under Section 482 CrPC into a revision under Section 397 CrPC and to have decided the same as per law," the bench said.

 

The court disposed of the appeal by setting aside the impugned order of the High Court of September 21, 2023 and remanded the matter to the High Court with further direction to convert the petition under Section 482 CrPC as a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC and decide it in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.