AKANKSHA ARORAversusTANAY MABEN

          [2024] 12 S.C.R. 954 : 2024 INSC 962

                       Akanksha Arora
                             v.
                        Tanay Maben
            (Criminal Appeal No(s). 5004 of 2024)
                       04 December 2024
       [Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court can convert the petition u/s.482 CrPC into
a revision u/s.397 CrPC and decide it as per law; Whether s.397
CrPC can affect the amplitude of the inherent powers of the High
Court u/s. 482 CrPC.

                            Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 and s.397 – Appellant-
wife filed a petition u/s.482 CrPC in the High Court seeking
enhancement of interim maintenance – The said petition has
been dismissed by the High Court by the order impugned on
the ground that it is not maintainable as the appellant-wife
has a remedy of a revision u/s.397 CrPC – Correctness:
Held: In a catena of decisions, it has been provided that
nomenclature of a petition is immaterial and for doing substantive
justice, the High Court can always convert a petition u/s.482 CrPC to
a revision u/s.397 CrPC and vice versa – The approach of the High
Court in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant u/s.482 CrPC
on the hyper technical ground that she had to avail the remedy of
revision cannot be appreciated – Nothing in CrPC, not even s.397,
can affect the amplitude of the inherent powers preserved in so many
terms by the language of s.482 CrPC – Even if the High Court was
of the view that the appellant should have invoked the jurisdiction
u/s.397 CrPC for seeking enhancement of interim maintenance, it
ought not to have non-suited the appellant only on the ground of
alternative remedy – The judicious approach would have been to
convert the petition u/s.482 CrPC into a revision u/s.397 CrPC and
to have decided the same as per law – Therefore, the impugned
order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remanded
to the High Court with a further direction to convert the petition
u/s.482 CrPC as a criminal revision u/s.397 CrPC and decide it in
accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the
parties. [Paras 7, 9, 10, 11]
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                      955

                     Akanksha Arora v. Tanay Maben


                            Case Law Cited
     Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra [1978] 1 SCR 749 :
     (1977) 4 SCC 551; Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan and
     Another [2016] 4 SCR 281 : (1977) 4 SCC 551 – referred to.

                              List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                           List of Keywords
     Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 397 of
     the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Enhancement of interim
     maintenance; Remedy of Revision; Inherent power of the High
     Court; Alternative remedy.

                          Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     5004 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2023 of the High Court
     of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur in MCRLC No. 18481
     of 2022

                        Appearances for Parties
     Vatsal Joshi, Gurdeep Wadhwa, Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Swati
     Mishra, Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Ms. Drishti Saraf, Advs. for the
     Appellant.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Order

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.
956                                                             [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                                Supreme Court Reports


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
       appellant-wife 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 appellant-wife 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 vice versa. 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 approach this Court by
       way of this appeal filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
8.     In Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra,1 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 Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan and Another,2 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 self-restraint, nothing
       more. Availability of alternative remedy of criminal revision
       under Section 397 CrPC, by itself, cannot be a good ground to
       dismiss an application under Section 482 CrPC.


1    [1978] 1 SCR 749 : (1977) 4 SCC 551
2    [2016] 4 SCR 281 : (1977) 4 SCC 551
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                      957

                       Akanksha Arora v. Tanay Maben


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 non-suited 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.
12. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan