Concurrent revisional jurisdiction and maintenance under criminal procedure: direct High Court revision and excess quantum were both rejected.

Concurrent revisional jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code requires an aggrieved party to approach the Sessions Court first in the ordinary course, and no exceptional circumstance was shown to justify direct recourse to the High Court. On maintenance, the evidence of the husband's admitted earnings, failure to support the wife and minor son, and the wife's sufficient cause to live separately supported the finding of neglect and refusal to maintain. The maintenance awarded to the wife and child was treated as proportionate to the husband's income and not excessive, so the revision failed on maintainability and on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a revision against an order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not maintainable before the High Court when the Sessions Court also had concurrent revisional jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the wife and minor son were entitled to maintenance and whether the quantum awarded was excessive.

Issue (i): Whether a revision against an order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not maintainable before the High Court when the Sessions Court also had concurrent revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers concurrent revisional jurisdiction on the Court of Session and the High Court. Where such concurrent jurisdiction exists, the aggrieved party should ordinarily approach the inferior court first unless exceptional grounds justify direct invocation of the higher court's jurisdiction. No such exceptional circumstance was shown.

Conclusion: The revision was liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had approached the High Court directly without first invoking the Sessions Court's revisional jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the wife and minor son were entitled to maintenance and whether the quantum awarded was excessive.

Analysis: The material showed that the husband had filed divorce proceedings asserting impossibility of cohabitation, had admitted his earnings, and had failed to maintain the wife and child. On those facts, the wife had sufficient cause to live separately and the finding of neglect and refusal to maintain was supported by the evidence. The maintenance awarded at Rs. 400 per month to the wife and Rs. 200 per month to the minor son was commensurate with the husband's admitted income and could not be termed excessive.

Conclusion: The award of maintenance in favour of the wife and minor son was justified and the quantum fixed required no interference.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the maintenance order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where revisional jurisdiction is concurrent, the High Court ordinarily should not be approached directly without special justification, and maintenance under Section 125 is sustainable when neglect to maintain and sufficient means are established on the evidence.

---