TARAKANATH KARversusLIPIKA KAR

                         ~2008) 7 S.C.R 964



A                      TARAKANATH KAR
                                 V.
                           LIPIKA KAR
                (Criminal Appeal No. 836 of 2008)
                           MAY 7, 2008
B
       (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)

        Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Ss. 125 and 362:

        Revisional jurisdiction of High Court - Maintenance to
c 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
  exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, could give direction
F 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
  departmental proceedings against him are clearly beyond
G
  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                   965
                 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

         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
  Chandana appeared before the SDJM, Suri and filed application
0
  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 SDJM was
  directed to decide the matter afresh. On 10.1.2000 learned
  SDJM dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed
  by Lipika holding that Chandana is the legally married wife of
F Tarak and Lipika is not legally married of the appellant. The
                                                                              i-
  revision petition filed by Lipika was allowed by the learned Single
  Judge in CRR No.970 of 2000 and the order of learned SDJM
  was set aside. There were certain directions given in the said
  petition, the correctness of which was questioned by the
G appellant by filing an application for modification/clarification. It
  was the specific stand of the appellant that the directions in
  question could not have been given ie. to initiate departmental
  proceedings against the appellant.
          The said application was dismis5ed by the subsequent
H
           TARAKANATH KAR v. LIPIKA KAR                        967
              [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

order dated 5.7.2006 holding that in view of the provisions of A
Section 362 of the Code the application was not maintainable.
      4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
directions as given are clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the High
Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Code.
Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the         B
High Court stating that the directions have been given keeping
the ultimate objective of doing justice to the parties.
      5. In the present appeal we are concerned with the legality
of the direction given by the learned Single Judge for initiation     c
of the departmental proceedings. The impugned direction read
as follows:
     "Before conclusion I think that it would be expedient for the
      interest of justice to take appropriate action against the
     Opposite Party Taraknath Kar. It appears from the materials D
     on record that Opposite Party Tarakri>th Kar is a Group -
     D employee of Durgapur Court and he is a government
     servant. In TS. No.200/94 filed by him before learned
     Munsif, 1st Court, Durgapur the Opposite Party stated that
     he is unmarried and there was no marriage between him E
     and defendant Lipika Kar. He filed the suit for declaration
     that Lipika Kar is not his wife. Subsequently, in CRR
     No.1742/95 filed by him and others praying for quashing
     of criminal case being C.R. No.124/95 under Section
     498A of IPC it was mentioned in paragraph 1 that he is F
     the husband of Opposite Party no.1 Lipika Kar and in
     paragraph 4(a) of the said revisional application it was
     mentioned that on 17.3.94 his marriage with Opposite
     Party No.1 was solemnized. Before the learned SDJM,
     Suri in Misc. Case No.320/95 by producing certified copy G
     of order sheet of learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court,
     Bankura, this Opposite Party Taraknatil Kar introduced
     the story that he was married with Chandana Kar on
     16.2.93 and a misc. case No.153/97 of learned Judicial
     Magistrate, 4th Court, Bankura Maintenance order under H
    968       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 7 S C.R.


A         Section 125 of the Code had been passed against him.
          It is, therefore, apparent from the papers and documents
          that this Opposite Party has introduced papers before
          Court regarding his marriage twice-once with Chandana
          Kar on 16.2.93 and another marriage with Lipika Kar on
B         7.3.94. Being an employee of Court and a government
          servant Opposite Party is not entitled to marry twice without
          obtaining permission of Appointing Authority. The conduct
          of the Opposite Party whether is unbecoming of a
          government servant, or not, as being a Hindu he cannot
c         marry twice under present law, should be considered by
          the Appointing Author!ty and Disciplinary Authority.
          Accordingly, learned District Judge, Burdwan being the
          Appointing Authority and Disciplinary is directed to take
          necessary disciplinary action against Opposite Party
          Taraknath Kar for his alleged marriage twice and if he
D
          finds that papers and documents are satisfactory for
          placing him under suspension he shal; take necessary
          steps in accordance with law for starting the disciplinary
          action and for consideration whether Taraknath Kar would
          be placed under suspension.
E
          Learned Registrar (Administration) is directed to send a
          copy of this order to the learned District Judge, Burdwan
          for information and necessary action accompanied by copy
          of revisional application of CRR No.1742/95, copy of plaint
F         of T.S. No.200/94 filed by the Opposite Party copy of
          application filed by Lipika Kar and written show-cause
          and annexures filed by Taraknath Kar of Misc. Case
          No.320/95 under Section 125 of the Code pending before
          learned SDJM, Suri and also copy of exhibit G-Series
          filed before the learned SDJM, Suri in connection with
G
          aforesaid Misc. Case for information and necessary action.
          The learned Registrar {Administration) may also instruct
          the learned SDJM, Suri to send copy/Xerox copy of
          application under Section 125 of the Code of Misc. Case
          No.320/95 of this Ccur<, copy of written show-cause anci
H


                                                                          .,
                     TARAKANATH KAR v. LIPIKA KAR                        969
     '                  [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

.,             annexures filed by the Opposite Party in connection with         A
               the said Misc. Case No.320/95 and copy of exhibit G-
               Series of that case to him so that after collection all the
               papers and documents he can send the said papers and
               documents to the learned District Judge, Burdwan for
               taking necessary action in the matter."                          B
                6. In the subsequent order dated 5.7.2006 the High Court
          highlighted the limited jurisdiction for rectification/modification
          under Section 362 of the Code.

                 7. It appears that the High Court while dealing with the       c
          application under Section 125 of the Code has essentially
          adjudicated that an offence punishable under Section 494 of
          the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') is made out. It
          needs to be noted that a Title Suit (TS 200/94) filed in the
          Durgapur Civil Court is pending where prayer was made for
                                                                                D
          declaration that the respondent was not his wife. Whether there
          was a second marriage as contended and wi1ether Lipika was
          his wife as claimed by her or Chandana was the wife of the
          appellant as claimed by him has yet to be decided. While
          exercising revisional jurisdiction it was not open to the High
          Court to give direction for initiation of departmental proceedings.   E
          Such a direction is beyond the scope of revisional jurisdiction
          under the Code. Therefore, the High Court was clearly in error
          in directing initiation of departmental proceedings; while dealing
          with an application for revision in the matter relating to Section
          125 of the Code. The directions given in this regard both in the      F
          original order and the subsequent order stand quashed.
               8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
          S.K.S.                                          Appeal allowed .


     ..