Procedural Nomenclature Cannot Defeat Interim Maintenance Claims; misfiled petition should be converted into criminal revision for determination.

A petition seeking enhancement of interim maintenance cannot be rejected solely because it was filed under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction rather than as a criminal revision. The availability of revision does not completely exclude inherent jurisdiction, although its exercise remains subject to judicial restraint. Where criminal revision is considered the appropriate remedy, the petition should be converted into a revision and decided according to law, rather than dismissed on a technical objection concerning nomenclature or alternative remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition seeking enhancement of interim maintenance could be dismissed as non-maintainable merely because it was filed under Section 482 rather than Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The nomenclature of proceedings is immaterial where substantive justice requires adjudication. The High Court's inherent jurisdiction is not wholly excluded by the availability of criminal revision; it may be exercised where circumstances warrant, subject to judicial self-restraint. If the High Court considered revision to be the appropriate remedy, it should have converted the petition into a revision instead of rejecting it on a technical objection.

Conclusion: The appellant could not be non-suited solely on account of the alternative remedy or the petition's nomenclature; the petition was required to be converted into a criminal revision and determined according to law.

---