JUDGMENT

K. Narayan, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 16.12.1980 of Special Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad passed in Case No. 672 of 1980 and subsequent revisional order dated 28.11.1981 of the first Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad.

2. Before proceeding with the arguments of the learned Counsel, the facts as admitted or shown to have been made out by the judgments of the Courts below may be briefly narrated.

3. The petitioner applicant- Scat. Shakira Bibi (hereinafter called the wife) is a legally married wife of Abdul Hai, Opposite party (hereinafter called the husband). They lived together admittedly upto March. 1979, whereafter admittedly the husband left for Delhi to earn his livelihood. According to the applicant she lived with her parents upto November, 1979 and thereafter when things became into lerable, she left her parents place. According to the husband, she was living with him at Delhi till 14.10 1979 when she left him without any consent and even without informing him and came to live with her parents. There was notice by the husband on 20.1.1980 desiring her to come back and a Panchayat, which also possibly desired the wife to go with her husband. The wife instead brought proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P.C. to get maintenance. Evidence was led by both the parties in respect of their allegations and the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the wife was not going to live with the husband though they had lived together at Delhi for some time and since the husband had also obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights from Delhi Court and even then the wife was not going. She was not entitled to maintenance. Possibly the contention was based on the assumption that there was no failure on the part of the husband to maintain the wife.

4. Aggrieved by both the decisions, the wife has come up with this petition.

5. In the first instance, the maintainability of this petition was challenged on behalf of the husband with reference to the law laid down in the case of H.K. Rawat v. Nidhi Prakash, (1989 A.W.C. page 633). The contention of the respondent was that in view of this decision, a revision or a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. against an order of Sessions Judge passed in revision under Section 399 Cr. P.C. would not be maintainable.

6. I am afraid, the contention is not well founded and the law laid down in the said decision is not that a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. would not lie when a revision has already been entertained by the Sessions Judge. It will be of much use to refer the conclusion of the judgment contained in para 17, which reads as under :

"Our answer to the second question referred to us is that where an application under Section 397 Cr. P.G. filed by any party in the Court of Sessions is decided against him, it is open to that party to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. only if the order of the Sessions Judge has resulted in the abuse of the process of the Court and/or calls for interference to secure the ends of justice as the bar under Section 397(3) and 399(3) Cr. P.C. is not applicable to the exercise of the inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. in such a case. If on the other hand the order of the Sessions Judge has determined the dispute between the parties as indicated in our judgment, it cannot be interferred with by the High Court in revision at the instance of the same party or sup moto or in the exercise of its Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. in view of the bar under Sections 397(3) and 399(3) Cr. P.C."

7. It is quite evident from the above quoted paragraph that a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. would not be barred simply by existence of decision of revision. In fact, I would venture to say that two Sections that is. Sections 397 and 399 Cr. P.C. on one hand and Section 482 Cr. P.C. on the other are different in the very nature thereof. A revision is maintainable when there is generally speaking some sort of illegality. May be depending upon the exercise of jurisdiction or even admissibility of evidence or even validity or otherwise of some legislation sought to be enforced. On the other hand, the authority of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. does not depend upon the law and is a judicial discretion, which cannot be reduced. Section 482 Cr. P.C. is a clause which opens a channel and even delimits the provisions of code of Criminal Procedure as is evident from the words "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." Therefore, the High Court has power to pass such orders as may be necessary but then again this power of the High Court is to be exercised for a very definite purpose, that is, to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Unless one of these two is likely to occur, the High Court may not be justified in exercising the authority under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The main object behind this Section remains that the High Court has to prevent abuse of process of law in any Court and also to secure the ends of justice. However, if the order is manifestly wrong and is to the extent of reaching the standard of abuse of process of law or Court, the interference may be necessary.

8. In the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1978 Cr. L.J. 165 (SC), which has been referred to and quoted in the decision of N.M. Valayudhan v. P. Sukumari, (1978 Cr. L.J. page 1209), the following observations were made :

"The following principles may be noticed in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court which have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost inveriebly, barring a few exceptions : (1) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievances of the aggrieved party (2) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; (3) That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. On a plain reading or Section 482, however, it would follow that nothing in the Code, which would include Sub-section (2) of Section 397 also, shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court. But if we were to say that the said bar is not to operate in the exercise of the inherent power at all, it will be setting at naught one of the limitations imposed upon the exercise of the revisional power. In such a situation, what is the harmonious way out ? In my opinion, a happy solution of this problem would be to say that the bar provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 397 operates only in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court, meaning thereby that the High Court will have no power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order. Then in accordance with one of the other principles enunciated above, the inherent power will come into play, there being no other provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. But then, if the order assailed is purely in exercise of the revisional power of the Court under the 1898 Code, the High Court will refuse to exercise its inherent power. But in case the impugned order clearly brings about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary, than nothing contained in Section 397(2) can limits or affect the exercise of the inherent power by the High Court. But such senses would be few and far between. The High Court must exercise the inherent power very aparingly. One such case would be the desirability of the quashing of a criminal proceedings initiated illegally, vexatiously or as being without jurisdiction."

9. It thus follows that a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.O. even after the decision by the Sessions Judge against an order of Magistrate can be preferred for quashing of a criminal proceedings initiated illegally, vexatiously or as being without jurisdiction.

10. The arguments on merit advanced on behalf of the petitioner were that both the Courts below had refused to grant maintenance on the ground that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights had been obtained and the wife was not complying with the same. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had relied upon certain decisions, according to which the mere existence of such a decree may not be a good bar to the grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. However, before proceedings with these decisions I would like to say a little about the history of the Section as well. The requirement of Section 125 Cr. P.C. are that persons having sufficient means must have neglected or refused to maintain his wife, child and parents. The first ingredient that is required in order to give authority to the Magistrate to proceed with an application under Section 126 Cr. P.C. and direct the husband or the person concerned to pay maintenance is that he should have suifficient means and should have neglected or refused to maintain. In the instant case, there does not Seem to be any dispute about the sufficiency of means but neglect and refusal to maintain had to be decided. Usually the wife is entitled to the maintenance at the place of husband and it is only in certain circumstances that she can be granted maintenance while being not in the company of the husband and the circumstances in which she can be permitted to remain away and even then claim maintenance are limited. Second proviso to sub-Section 3 of Section 125 Cr. P.C. directs that if such a person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this Section notwithstanding such offer, if he Is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. In the present case, there is nothing so far to indicate that there were any reasons for the wife to refuse to go to Delhi and live with the husband. I need not go into the questions of fact as to whether She had lived with him or not but there is nothing to show that She was not allowed to live there. Even on her own showing She was living with the parents of the husband. There is no contention that She was ill-treated even at the place of in-laws. The factum of existence of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in this case having come into existence before the decision arrived at by the learned Magistrate will be a matter of evidence. Ordinarily the grounds for which a wife can refuse to live with the husband and yet claim maintenance are also grounds for meeting a case for restitution of conjugal rights. Her absence from the civil Court despite having come to know of the decree goes to show that She had nothing to put forth before the Court. Moreover, this is a question of fact, which cannot be decided afresh at this stage and I may mention it just to show that there is no illegality with the order.

11. Sub-Section 4 of Section 125 Cr. P.C. also directs that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this Section if She is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, She refuses to live with her husband or if they are living separately by mutual consent. In the present case, it is clear that despite having come to know of the decree of the civil Court, She did not move any application there and obviously has no ground to contest there.

12. It has been contended by the learned Counsel that existence of the decree is not material Upon this fact, a decision is to be made as to whether there has been negligence or failure to maintain wife on the part of the husband or not. A parallel provision to Section 125 Cr. P.C. had been in Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Justice Kidwai in the case of Mohd. Siddique v, Zubeda Khatoon, (A.I.R. 1952 Allahabad 616) had observed that a decision in a suit against wife for restitution of conjugal rights is equivalent to a decision by a competent civil Court, that the wife had no sufficient reason for refusing to live with husband and the criminal Court cannot enquire into any allegations of failure or neglect to maintain prior to such decision.

13. In another case of Geeta Kumari v. Shiv Charan, (1975 Cr. L.J. page 137) the same decision was arrived at and the argument of the learned Counsel for the wife that mere passing of a decree for resritution of conjugal rights is not enough to drive her out of claim for maintenance was repelled in paragraph 5. (Various authorities cited before the learned Judge were mainly on the ground that the order of maintenance had already been obtained before passing of the decree).

14. In the case of Pavakhal v. Athappa Goundan, (A.I.R. 1925 Madras page 1218), it was held that mere obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights would not be a good ground for cancellation of an order of maintenance. A perusal of this decision would show that in this case also the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was obtained subsequently and then there were good reasons for the wife to live separately as the husband had second wife and child by her. It was in these circumstances observed that the decree was not obtained with bonafide intentions and was just to cover the order of maintenance.

15. In the case of Fakruddin Shamsuddin Saiyed v. Bai Janab, (A.I.R. 1944 Bombay page 11), again there was a finding that the action of the husband in obtaining a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was not in good faith and, consequently, it was considered to be no good for passing of an order for modification of maintenance In view of Section 488 Cr. P.C. as it then was.

16. In view of the above decisions, the main factor remains that the decision has to be arrived at, whether before or latter that there has been failure or negligence on the part of the husband to maintain the wife. If the decree of the Court was considered to have been obtained only as a mattes of defence, it could have been ignored but where the decree was obtained prior to the order of the maintenance and the wife had not placed facts before the Court so as to make her entitled to separate residence, decree was to be respected as has been observed in the case of Geeta Kumari (supra).

17. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not advanced any argument with regard to paragraph 16 and 18 of the petition, yet I would like to record my observations about them. In paragraph 16 of the petition, the evidence led in the form of a parcha of a hospital to make out residence of the petitioner in Delhi for some time, was attacked as in admissible. I do not think this Could be gone into by way of petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. In any event that was not sole evidence and I do not know in the absence of the record of trial Court as to whether it was duly proved or not. In paragraph 18 of the petition, the allegations were that the judgment and decree of the Court in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was without jurisdiction. In view of the fact that it has been made out that they had lived together last in Delhi, there does not seem any reason to consider that the said decree might have been without jurisdiction. In any case, even if it could be assumed despite the finding of the Magistrate that the applicant had not lived at Delhi it would be a question of territorial jurisdiction only and the same would a question of fact and not the matter of inherent lack of jurisdiction.

18. In view of the above observations, it needs hardly to be said that the decision arrived at the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be against law so as to justify an interference by this Court exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C,

19. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.