Summary
The Supreme Court upheld revival of a wife’s maintenance application after the husband failed to honour the settlement on which it had been disposed of. Section 362’s prohibition on altering final criminal orders is subject to express statutory exceptions. The continuing jurisdiction reflected in Sections 125 and 127 relaxed that prohibition in these maintenance proceedings. Restoring the application avoided leaving the wife without relief after non-compliance with the settlement.
Issues
- Whether Section 362 barred revival of maintenance proceedings disposed of on an unfulfilled settlement.
Provisions considered
- Section 362, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Recognised the express saving for powers otherwise conferred by the Code, while affirming the general prohibition on review of final criminal orders. (¶¶ 11, 18, 20, 21, 26, 27)
- Sections 125(1), 125(5) and 127, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Read the continuing and express powers concerning maintenance as relaxing the Section 362 bar in these proceedings. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31)
Held
- Ordinarily a criminal court cannot review its signed judgment or final order through inherent power. Section 362 itself, however, saves powers expressly supplied elsewhere in the Code or another law. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21)
- Maintenance enforces a continuing social obligation. The provisions for directions from time to time, cancellation and alteration demonstrate that a court does not wholly lose jurisdiction after making a maintenance order. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
- The husband admitted paying only four months’ maintenance and had not paid the agreed arrears within six months. In these circumstances, setting aside the settlement disposal and restoring the wife’s application advanced the provision’s protective purpose and was not barred by Section 362. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- The High Court correctly declined interference under Section 482 with an order that substantially secured justice by reviving the application. (¶ 32)
Result
Appeal dismissed; restoration of the maintenance application and High Court’s refusal to interfere upheld.