TARAKANATH KAR versus LIPIKA KAR

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 964 · Decided: 07-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

~2008) 7 S.C.R 964 
A 
TARAKANATH KAR 
V. 
LIPIKA KAR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 836 of 2008) 
B 
MAY 7, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Ss. 125 and 362: 
c 
Revisional jurisdiction of High Court - Maintenance to 
wife - Appellant alleg8dly married twice - Trial Court granted 
maintenance to seconc' wife - Execution - Revision Petition 
- Allowed by High Court directing the trial Court to decide the 
matter afresh - Dismissed by trial Court - Revision Petition 
filed by second wife - Allowed by Single Judge of High Court 
• 
D directing the administrative authorities of the Court, the 
employ"lr, to initiate disciplinary proceedings 3gainst the 
appellant, a Court employee - Correctness of- Held: Incorrect 
- While exercising revisional Jurisdiction, it was not open to 
High Court to give direction for initiation of departmental 
E proceeding - Hence, direction so given by the High Court, 
stands quashed. 
The question which arose for determination in this 
criminal appeal was as to whether the High Court, in 
F 
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, could give direction 
for initiation of a departmental proceeding against the 
accused while dealing with an application for revision in 
the matter relating to s.125 Cr.P.C., 1973. 
Appellant contended that the directions to initiate 
G departmental proceedings against him are clearly beyond 
the jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising 
revisional jurisdiction under the provisions of the Code. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
964 
" 
TARAKANATH KAR v. LIPIKA KAR 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
965 
HELD: 1.1 The High Court while dealing with the A 
application under Section 125 of the Code has essentially 
adjudicated that an offence punishable under Section 
494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is made out. (Para -
7) [969-C] 
1.2 A Title Suit filed in the Civil Court is pending where 8 
prayer was made for declaration that the respondent was 
not his wife. Whether there was a second marriage as 
contended and whether the respondent was his wife, as 
claimed by her, or 'C' was the wife of the appellant, as 
claimed by him, has yet to be decided. (Para - 7) [969-
C 
C,D] 
1.3 While exercising Revisional Jurisdiction it was 
not open to the High Court to give direction for initiation 
of departmental proceedings. Such a direction is beyond 0 
the scope of Revisional Jurisdiction under the Code. 
Tt:erefore, the High Court was clearly in arror in directing 
initiation of departmental proceedings against the 
appellant while dealing with an application for revision 
in the matter relating to Section 125 of the Code. Hence, 
the directions given in this regard both in the original E 
order and the subsequent order stand quashed. (Para 
- 7) 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDCTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 836 of 2008 
F 
From the Judgment & Order dated 5.7.2006 of the High 
Court at Calcutta in C.R.A.N. No. 593/2005 
Bijoy Adhikary, Subrata Bhattacharya, Shree Pal Singh and 
Rahul Singh for the Appellant. 
G 
K. Sarada Devi for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
H 
966 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 7 S.C R. 
A 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in CRR No.970 
of 2000 dated 19.1.2005 and order passed in the application 
for clarification or modification of the order dated 19.1.2005. 
B 
3. Background facts as projected by the appe!lant are as 
follows: 
Appellant and one Chandana entered into a wedlock on 
16.2.1993 and were blessed with two sons. On 16.9.1995 
respondent-Lipika filed a case no.320/95, under Section 125 
c of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code') 
claiming to be wife of the appellant and prayed for maintenance. 
The said case was filed in the Court of SDJM, West Bengal. On 
9.7.1997, the said case was transferred to the Court of SDJM 
Suri, by order of learned CJM at Birbhum. On 13.8.1997 
0 
Chandana appeared before the SDJM, Suri and filed application 
for being impleaded in the proceedings. On 14.1.1998 learned 
SDJM passed an ex-parte order of maintenanve in favour of 
the Lipika granting her maintenance @ Rs.400/- p.m. On 
27.8.1999 Criminal Revision case No.308/99 was filed by the 
E 
appellant against Lipika's misc. execution case no.413/1998 
arising out of ex-parte order referred to above. The ex-parte 
order was set aside by the High Court and learned S

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.