DEBI PROSAD SIRCAR-I,J. - (1.) IN this Revisional Application the petitioner, a personnel of the army, prays for quashing under section 482 of the Cr. P. C., the order of his superior army authority passed for GOC-in-C, Victor Force Provost Unit, directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and child at the rate of 22% of his pay and allowance amounting to Rs. 732/- per month for the wife and Rs. 183/- per month for the child, from the month of March, 1996, payable by the last date of each month.
(2.) THE wife of the petitioner filed a case under section 125, Cr. P. C. against the petitioner before the learned S.D.J.M., Suri for maintenance and accordingly in Misc. Case No. 61180 of that Court, the learned S.D.J.M., Suri directed the Opposite Party in that case, that is, the present petitioner, to pay Rs. 200/- per month to the present Opposite Party No. 1, wife, for her maintenance on and from 31.1.86. The present petitioner, that is, the husband, is a military personnel. While the wife was receiving that maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month as ordered by the learned S.D.J.M., Suri, she filed a petition on 10.2.88 before the GOC-in-C, 33 Mechanised Division, Andhra Pradesh, under which the husband was in service, to issue suitable direction to pay adequate maintenance submitting that a maintenance at Rs. 200 per month was not at all sufficient for her with the child. Over this petition the Army Authority concerned took action against the present petitioner, husband, directed him to show cause in terms of section 91(i) of the Army Act, 1950, read with Army Rule 193, and, after proceeding with the matter as per law as the Army Authority found proper, directed the husband-petitioner on 9.3.96 to pay maintenance as above taking into consideration and including the amount of Rs. 200/- as ordered by the learried S.D.J.M., Suri as stated above. The petitioner-husband challenges that order of the Army Authority and prays for quashing it alleging that it interferes with the judicial order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Suri as above. The Army Authorities as impleaded in this revisional application and the wife contest this case. The Army Authority produced copies of some documents of the proceeding before them under section 91(i) of the Army Act under which the impugned order was passed. On behalf of the petitioner-husband Mr. E. Kabir argues that there being a judicial order passed for maintenance by the learned S.D.J.M., Suri under section 125, Cr. P. C. on her own praying if the wife required any enhancement she was to move the very same Court for alteration in allowances. When there is a lawful procedure before the competent Court of law it was quite illegal on the part of the wife to move the Army Authority for such revision and it was also illegal for the Army Authority to make interference with the judicial proceeding. The order of the Army Authority cannot override the order of the Magistrate or to interfere with it as desired by the petitioner. Hence, the order of the Army Authority as impugned in this case is quite illegal and must be quashed by this Court. Section 91(i) of the Army Act does not provide for any power to the Army Authority to override the judicial pronouncement. Under Articles 225, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of the Army Authority and to quash the proceeding before them. The learned advocate for the petitioner-husband refers to the rulings reported in AIR 1971 Mad 155, AIR 1967 Bom 355, AIR 1995 Cal 336 and (1989)1 Cal HN 369.
(3.) ON behalf of the Army Autborities O.P. Nos. 1-5, Mr. Talukdar argues that Article 227 of the Constitution will not be appropriate in this case and it does not provide for any action to set aside the order passed by the Army Tribunal in the judicial proceeding adopted by them as per the provision of the Army Act, which again is equally the law of land binding the army men and is a special legislation for such army men. He further argues that the impugned order was passed from Bangalore where the petitioner used to work for gain and as such this order cannot be questioned in this High Court, as the jurisdiction of this High Court does not extend beyond the geographical area of this State. An order, further, under section 91(i) of the Army Act is not an order under the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such section 482 of the Code, as the section itself shows, does not apply to this case. As to the merit of the case. Mr. Talukdar argues that this order of the Army Authority has no bearing on the order of the learned SDJM and in no way interferes with or overrides it. The Army Act provides for a special forum for matters concerning Army personnel, and among other things, it provides for maintenance in case of dependents of army men. The impugned order was passed after giving due consideration to the order of the learned SDJM, Suri as pleaded by the petitioner. Parallel to the procedure provided under section 127, Cr. P. C. the Army Act provides another procedure as embodied in section 91(i) of the Act read with Rule 193 of the Army Rules as a legislation specially enforceable to Army men and wife had her right to move the Army Authority for consideration of the question of maintenance of her and their child afresh adopting forum parallel to the general forum. It did not offend the ordinary law or the judicial order by such general forum. As such the proceeding and the order impugned before the Army was undoubtedly an independent act, quite lawful as the special law overrides general law of the land. It is an order passed lawfully, by lawful authority without offending natural justice. Accordingly this order cannot be quashed.;