Akanksha Arora vs Tanay Maben
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Decided on
- 04-12-2024
<pre> 2024 INSC 962
<b>REPORTABLE</b>
<b>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA </b>
<b>CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION </b>
<b>CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024</b>
<b> (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) NO(S). 15909 of 2023)</b>
<b>AKANKSHA ARORA</b> <b>….APPELLANT(S)</b>
<b>VERSUS</b>
<b>TANAY MABEN</b> <b> …RESPONDENT(S)</b>
<b>O R D E R</b>
1. Service of notice upon the respondent is complete, but
no one has entered appearance on his behalf.
2. Leave granted.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
4. The appellant by means of this appeal is assailing the
judgment and order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the High
Court of Jabalpur in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.18481
of 2022 titled as 'Akanksha Arora vs. Tanay Maben.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
geeta ahuja
Date: 2024.12.11
15:35:59 IST
Reason:
1
5. It appears that the Principal Judge, Family Court vide
order dated 08.03.2022 in exercise of powers under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the
CrPC') had fixed interim maintenance in favour of the
appellant.
6. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of interim
maintenance, the appellantwife had filed a petition under
Section 482 CrPC in the High Court seeking enhancement.
The said petition has been dismissed by the High Court by
the order impugned on the ground that it is not
maintainable as the appellantwife has a remedy of a
revision under Section 397 CrPC.
7. This Court has, in a catena of decisions, provided that
nomenclature of a petition is immaterial and for doing
substantive justice, the High Court can always convert a
petition under Section 482 CrPC to a revision under Section
397 CrPC and <i>vice versa.</i> The approach of the High Court in
dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Section
482 CrPC on the hyper technical ground that she had to
avail the remedy of revision cannot be appreciated because
the same has unnecessarily compelled the appellant to
2
approach this Court by way of this appeal filed under Article
136 of the Constitution of India.
<b><i>1</i></b>
8. In ,
<b><i>Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra</i></b>
this Court held that the label of a petition filed by an
aggrieved party is immaterial. The High Court can always
examine the controversy in an appropriate case in exercise
of its inherent powers.
9. In
<b><i>Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan and</i></b>
<b><i>2</i></b>
<b><i>Another</i></b> , this Court examined the relevant scope of Section
482 CrPC and Section 397 CrPC and held that nothing in
CrPC, not even Section 397, can affect the amplitude of the
inherent powers preserved in so many terms by the
language of Section 482 CrPC. The inherent powers should
not invade areas set apart for specific powers conferred
under CrPC but there is no total ban on the exercise of
inherent powers where abuse of process of Court or other
extraordinary situation warrants exercise of inherent
jurisdiction. The limitation is selfrestraint, nothing more.
<b>Availability of alternative remedy of criminal revision</b>
<b>under Section 397 CrPC, by itself, cannot be a good</b>
1 (1977) 4 SCC 551
2 (1977) 4 SCC 551
3
<b>ground to dismiss an application under Section 482</b>
<b>CrPC.</b>
10. Viewed in light of the above precedents, we feel that
even if the High Court was of the view that the appellant
should have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 397
CrPC for seeking enhancement of interim maintenance, it
ought not to have nonsuited the appellant only on the
ground of alternative remedy. The judicious approach
would have been to convert the petition under Section 482
CrPC into a revision under Section 397 CrPC and to have
decided the same as per law.
11. In view of the above, we dispose of the appeal by
setting aside the impugned order of the High Court dated
21.09.2023 and remand the matter to the High Court with
further direction to convert the petition under Section 482
CrPC as a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC and
decide it in accordance with law after affording opportunity
of hearing to the parties.
4
12. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
<b>……………………….J.</b>
<b>(PANKAJ MITHAL)</b>
<b>……………………….J.</b>
<b>(SANDEEP MEHTA)</b>
<b>NEW DELHI;</b>
<b>DECEMBER 04, 2024.</b>
5</pre>
<b>REPORTABLE</b>
<b>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA </b>
<b>CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION </b>
<b>CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024</b>
<b> (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) NO(S). 15909 of 2023)</b>
<b>AKANKSHA ARORA</b> <b>….APPELLANT(S)</b>
<b>VERSUS</b>
<b>TANAY MABEN</b> <b> …RESPONDENT(S)</b>
<b>O R D E R</b>
1. Service of notice upon the respondent is complete, but
no one has entered appearance on his behalf.
2. Leave granted.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
4. The appellant by means of this appeal is assailing the
judgment and order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the High
Court of Jabalpur in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.18481
of 2022 titled as 'Akanksha Arora vs. Tanay Maben.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
geeta ahuja
Date: 2024.12.11
15:35:59 IST
Reason:
1
5. It appears that the Principal Judge, Family Court vide
order dated 08.03.2022 in exercise of powers under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the
CrPC') had fixed interim maintenance in favour of the
appellant.
6. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of interim
maintenance, the appellantwife had filed a petition under
Section 482 CrPC in the High Court seeking enhancement.
The said petition has been dismissed by the High Court by
the order impugned on the ground that it is not
maintainable as the appellantwife has a remedy of a
revision under Section 397 CrPC.
7. This Court has, in a catena of decisions, provided that
nomenclature of a petition is immaterial and for doing
substantive justice, the High Court can always convert a
petition under Section 482 CrPC to a revision under Section
397 CrPC and <i>vice versa.</i> The approach of the High Court in
dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Section
482 CrPC on the hyper technical ground that she had to
avail the remedy of revision cannot be appreciated because
the same has unnecessarily compelled the appellant to
2
approach this Court by way of this appeal filed under Article
136 of the Constitution of India.
<b><i>1</i></b>
8. In ,
<b><i>Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra</i></b>
this Court held that the label of a petition filed by an
aggrieved party is immaterial. The High Court can always
examine the controversy in an appropriate case in exercise
of its inherent powers.
9. In
<b><i>Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan and</i></b>
<b><i>2</i></b>
<b><i>Another</i></b> , this Court examined the relevant scope of Section
482 CrPC and Section 397 CrPC and held that nothing in
CrPC, not even Section 397, can affect the amplitude of the
inherent powers preserved in so many terms by the
language of Section 482 CrPC. The inherent powers should
not invade areas set apart for specific powers conferred
under CrPC but there is no total ban on the exercise of
inherent powers where abuse of process of Court or other
extraordinary situation warrants exercise of inherent
jurisdiction. The limitation is selfrestraint, nothing more.
<b>Availability of alternative remedy of criminal revision</b>
<b>under Section 397 CrPC, by itself, cannot be a good</b>
1 (1977) 4 SCC 551
2 (1977) 4 SCC 551
3
<b>ground to dismiss an application under Section 482</b>
<b>CrPC.</b>
10. Viewed in light of the above precedents, we feel that
even if the High Court was of the view that the appellant
should have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 397
CrPC for seeking enhancement of interim maintenance, it
ought not to have nonsuited the appellant only on the
ground of alternative remedy. The judicious approach
would have been to convert the petition under Section 482
CrPC into a revision under Section 397 CrPC and to have
decided the same as per law.
11. In view of the above, we dispose of the appeal by
setting aside the impugned order of the High Court dated
21.09.2023 and remand the matter to the High Court with
further direction to convert the petition under Section 482
CrPC as a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC and
decide it in accordance with law after affording opportunity
of hearing to the parties.
4
12. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
<b>……………………….J.</b>
<b>(PANKAJ MITHAL)</b>
<b>……………………….J.</b>
<b>(SANDEEP MEHTA)</b>
<b>NEW DELHI;</b>
<b>DECEMBER 04, 2024.</b>
5</pre>