Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to re-appreciate concurrent factual findings regarding marital status and maintenance.

Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the applicant, asserting she was his legally wedded wife and Respondent No. 2 was their minor son

She alleged neglect and expulsion from the matrimonial home without cause

The applicant denied the marriage, claiming Respondent No. 1 was previously married without a valid divorce

On 25.04.2013, the trial Court (Gram Nyayalaya, Nagod) awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- to the son

This order was affirmed by the Revisional Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Nagod) on 11.08.2015

The applicant subsequently moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash these orders

1. Whether the findings regarding the existence of a valid marriage and the paternity of the child were perverse or unsupported by evidence

2. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can re-appreciate factual findings of subordinate courts regarding financial capacity and the quantum of maintenance

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice; however, these powers are to be exercised sparingly and not for the re-appreciation of evidence

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which governs the award of maintenance to wives and children upon proof of neglect or refusal to maintain by a person with sufficient means

The High Court observed that both the trial and revisional courts had recorded concurrent findings of fact based on oral and documentary evidence, establishing that Respondent No. 1 was the legally wedded wife and Respondent No. 2 was the applicant's son

The Court emphasized that its jurisdiction under Section 482 is limited and cannot be used to substitute its own findings for those of the lower courts unless there is patent illegality or perversity

The applicant failed to provide material evidence to demonstrate such perversity

The court reasoned that the disputes regarding the validity of the marriage, the applicant's financial incapacity, and the alleged excessiveness of the maintenance amount were factual matters already duly considered and rejected by the subordinate courts

the petition essentially sought an impermissible re-appreciation of evidence under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the application, upholding the maintenance orders passed by the lower courts