(1) This is an application for a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court from the order dated 8-1-1968 allowing Criminal Revision No. 9 of 1967, in agreement with the recommendation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, from the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, dismissing the application of Smt. Krisha Kumari under Section 488 Cr. P.C., for maintenance for herself and her son. The parties, as is obvious were married to each toher on 17-11-1959, and after marriage, they lived together as husband and wife and a son was born form this marriage on 20-10-1960. Misunderstanding appears to have arisen between the husband and the wife and the husband apparently stopped supporting her. The wife then initiated proceedings under Section 488, Criminal P.C., in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, who dismissed that application on 28-5-1966. According to the wife's allegations, the respondent and his mtoher were nto satisfied with the dowry brought by the wife, with the result that the husband started maltreating her. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the application holding that the wife had been leading an adulterous life with one MurliDhar.
(2) The matter having been taken to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he went into the record with great care and felt no hesitation in holding that the husband had chosen to make false allegations of adultery against his wife. Indeed, the husband did nto even choose to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The case was thus recommended to this Court for quashing the order of the learned sub-Divisional Magistrate and allowing to the wife the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 60 per month. In this Court, the only ground on which the recommendation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was sought to the contested was that the conclusion of the learned Magistrate is binding on this Court on revision and that, however erroneous that conclusion may be, this Court has no jurisdiction on revision to scrutinise those conclusions. This submission was negatived and it is against this order that a certificate of fitness under Article 134(1)(c) is sought. It is argued on behalf of the husband by Shri Mohan Behari Lal that reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was incompetent because he was seeking to interfere with a finding of fact of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and that he did nto formulate any question of law of authoritative decision by this Court. In my opinion, this submission is some what misconceived.
In cases under section 488, Criminal P.C., when the aggrieved party desires to approach this Court on revision, , the Court of the Sessions Judge has, as a matter of practice, to be approached in the first instance and if that Court agrees with the aggrieve party, then the case is forwarded to this Court for final order on revision with the recommendation of the Court of the Sessions Judge. If the learned Sessions Judge does nto agree to forward the case to this Court then the aggrieved party can approach this Court for the relief claim. There is, however, no question of the Sessions Judge formulating precise question of law for decision by this Court, and certainly failure to so formulate a question does nto vitiate the reference or deprive this Court of it jurisdiction to exercise its revisional power under the code of Criknal procedure.
In so far as the argument of interference with questions of fact is concerned, it is true that the power of revision conferred on this Court under the code of Criminal Procedure is nto to be equated with the power of appeal either under that Code or under the code of Civil Procedure. Indeed, as has been ntoiced in the order against which certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court is sought, the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure in regard to the revisional power of the High Court is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction intended to secure the correction of patent errors of defects resulting in kjis carriage of justice and those errors may arise from misconception of law or irregularity of procedure. This jurisdiction is a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction from the point of view of substantial justice. It has nto been shown by the learned counsel for the husband that this view is incorrect and requires to be examined by the Supreme Court. Certificate of fitness within the contemplation of Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution is nto to be given as a matter of course, no merely because the decision is stated to the erroneous. On the toher hand, it requires exceptional and special circumstances where substantial and grave injustice has been done and the case presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decisions by the Supreme Court. There should be either some kind of disregard of the form of the legal process or violation of some important principle or toherwise substantial and grave injustice must be made out. I am unable to persuade my self on the present record to conclude that this case satisfies this test.
(3) As a last resort, it has been argued by Shri Mohan Behari Lal that the question as to what is the quantum of proof required for sustaining a finding of adultery in proceedings under Section 488, Criminal P.C., is a special feature in this case which deserves to be settled by the Supreme Court. Here again, I am unable to agree with the learned counsel and, in my view, this is nto a cogent ground for certifying the case to be a fit one for appeal under Article 131(1)(c).
(4) On behalf of the respondent it has been urged that competency of the reference was never argued either in this court or before the learned Additional Sessions judge, and even in the grounds for certificate of fitness it has nto been so pleaded. This point thereforee, according to the submission, should nto be entertained.
(5) In my views, no cogent ground for certificate of fitness has been made out, with the result that this petition fails and is dismissed.
(6) An application has, however, been made by Shri Mohan Behari Lal on behalf of the respondent praying that this Court should stay the operation of the order of this Court for a sufficiently long period to enable him to approach the Supreme Court with prayer for special leave. I am afraid, having dismissed the application for certificate of fitness, I do nto find any cogent ground to grant the stay as prayed, assuming this court has the power to make such an order, as to which I entertain grave doubt. In de, on behalf o the respondent this application is strongly contested on the ground that such an application is incompetent. Without expressing any final opinion on the competency of such an application about which, a s I have observed earlier, I have serious doubts, I do nto think this is a fit case in which stay should be granted. It is true that the amount of maintenance has by now accumulate, but it is all due to the fault on the part of the respondent whose duty it was to maintain his wife as held by this Court. To assert that he has nto gto the means, is certainly nto conclusive. As a matter of fact, I put it to the counsel in he wanted some time for making the entire payment, so that the time may be extended provided he pays a substantial amount immediately to his wife for the maintenance, who has been, according to the finding of this Court, neglected by the husband, but the counsel was nto in a position to give any undertaking.
(7) In the circumstances, I do nto find any justification for acceding to the prayer, assuming against I have that power. So this prayer for stay is also declined.
(8) Application dismissed.