TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could entertain a second revision after the respondent had already invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge; (ii) whether an order of maintenance passed under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, survived under the repealed and re-enacted Code and could be cancelled under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Issue (i): Whether the High Court could entertain a second revision after the respondent had already invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge.
Analysis: Section 397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 bars a further application by the same person to the other revisional authority once the option of moving either the High Court or the Sessions Judge has been exercised. The bar is designed to prevent multiple revisions and to secure finality. A revision before the High Court could not be treated as one directed against the order of the Sessions Judge so as to evade the statutory prohibition. Nor could the order be supported under Article 227, since the High Court had not purported to exercise that power and, in any event, supervisory jurisdiction could not be used to circumvent the express statutory bar.
Conclusion: The revision before the High Court was incompetent and the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it.
Issue (ii): Whether an order of maintenance passed under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, survived under the repealed and re-enacted Code and could be cancelled under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Analysis: Under Section 484(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, orders in force immediately before commencement of the new Code are deemed to have been made under the corresponding provisions of the new Code. Section 125 of the new Code corresponds to Section 488 of the old Code, even though the new provision restricts maintenance to a major child except where there is physical or mental abnormality or injury. The expression "corresponding provision" does not mean an identical provision. Once the old maintenance order is deemed to be an order under Section 125, it is also subject to Section 127, which permits cancellation on proof of change in circumstances. The son's attainment of majority and the change in law constituted sufficient circumstances for cancellation.
Conclusion: The maintenance order was liable to be treated as an order under Section 125 and could be cancelled under Section 127.
Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unsustainable, and the cancellation of maintenance ordered by the Magistrate was restored in consequence of the appellant's successful challenge.
Ratio Decidendi: A saved pre-repeal maintenance order is to be treated as an order under the corresponding provision of the re-enacted Code for all purposes, including cancellation on changed circumstances, and the statutory bar on second revision cannot be bypassed by recharacterising the challenge or invoking supervisory jurisdiction to defeat Section 397(3).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
