- (1.) This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 11.12.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Manipuri in Criminal Revision No. 345 of 2006 (Preeti Vs CJM and another) whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, set aside the order dated 9.10.2006 passed by learned CJM, Mainpuri in Criminal Misc. Case No. 116 of 2006 (Shiv Nandon Vs Preeti).
(2.) The encapsulated facts of the case are that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C was filed by the opposite party no. 2 on 7.6.2001 which was decreed exparte on 24.4.2002 directing the applicant revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 as maintenance allowance. Against this order, the revisionist moved an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri for setting aside the ex-parte judgment which was set aside by the court below vide order dated 4.2.2004 and cost of Rs. 2000/- was also imposed on the revisionist for not paying the maintenance allowance Against this order, revisionist preferred a Revision Petition No. 74 of 2004 which was allowed by reducing the cost of Rs. 2000 to Rs. 100/- and the court below further ordered the revisionist to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 1900/- vide order dated 23.4.2004 which was to be adjusted towards payment of maintenance. The revisionist did not comply with the order and sought time from the court below. The court below again granted about two month's time i.e. up to 1.6.2004 to comply with the order. Despite time being granted, on 1.6.2004, the revisionist again moved an application 13 B which was rejected and ultimately the misc case no. 135 of 2002, under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was disposed off and restoration application was rejected. Realization proceedings were initiated in pursuance of the order dated 1.6.2004.
(3.) It is further alleged that the revisionist, thereafter, moved an application before the learned CJM on 19/21.8.2006 requesting the court below to permit him to deposit the costs as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 23.4.2004, which was allowed by the learned CJM vide order dated 9.10.2006 by imposing further costs of Rs. 1000/- for delay in depositing the amount as ordered by the then learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri. This order was challenged by the opposite party no. 2 before the learned Sessions Judge, Mainpur by filing a criminal revision no. 345 of 2006 on the ground that the CJM, Mainpuri has committed manifest irregularity and illegality in passing the order dated 9.10.2006. The revisional court after considering the facts as well as after hearing the counsel for the parties set aside the order dated 9.10.2006 passed by learned CJM, Mainpuri vide order dated 11.12.2006 on the ground that the order dated 1.6.2004 passed by the then learned Sessions Judge had not been challenged in any court hence attained finality. Moreover, no restoration application was pending before the Court and the CJM had no authority to revive the order which had attained finality or allowed the application dated 19/21.8.2006 filed by the revisionist by imposing further costs of Rs. 1000/-.;