- (1.) Smt. Beti Bai filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. which was allowed by the learned Magistrate by the judgement and order dated 21-4-86 and the applicant Harlal was directed to pay her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150.00 per month. The revision preferred by the applicant was dismissed by the learned sessions Judge on 7-8-86. The present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing of the aforesaid orders.
(2.) The question whether it is open to a party to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. who has unsuccessfully assailed the order passed by a Magistrate in proceedings under Section 125 or 133 or 145 Cr. P.C. by filing a revision before the learned Sessions Judge under Section 399 Cr. P.C. has been considered by a Full Bench in H. K. Rawal v. Nidhi Prakash 1989 All LJ 732. The Full Bench after considering the decisions of Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 47, Raj Kapoor v. State AIR 1980 SC 258, V. C. Shukla v. State, AIR 1980 SC 962, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, AIR 1983 SC 67 and Rajan Kumar Manchanda v. State of Karnataka, 1988 All CC 54 (SC), held as follows :- (At p. 736, para 15 of All LJ) "Similarly, the order of the Sessions Judge in revision in cases under Sections 125, 133/138 and 145 Cr. P.C. and against an order of discharge by the Magistrate cannot be interfered with by the High Court either in exercise of its revisional powers at the instances of the same party or suo motu or in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for these are also some of the orders of the Sessions Judge which determined the dispute between the parties."
(3.) Applying the principle laid down by the Full Bench, the present petition is not maintainabale.;