Allahabad High Court: Allowing the revision, the Court observed that the supervisory power or revisional jurisdiction of the High Court provided for under Sections 397(1) and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not negated or affected by the absence of a provision for appeal to the High Court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It was observed that the 2005 Act provided no finality to the order passed under Section 29 and there was no specific exclusion of the CrPC.
The revision was filed by the aggrieved husband against the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge under Section 29 of the DV Act for payment of maintenance at Rs 30,000 per month towards his wife. The counsel for the opposite party relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Shalu Ojha v. Prashant Ojha, (2015) 2 SCC 99 submitted that the revision was not maintainable.
Upholding the view of Manoj Misra, J. in Prabhunath Tiwari v. State of UP, 2012 SCC Online All 3172 the Court said that the revisional power of the High Court against the order passed under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act are “intact and unaffected”. The supervisory power of the High Court “has not been excluded expressly or impliedly” by the Act. Therefore, the Sessions Court was subject to the revisionary power of the High Court. Moreover, while examining the merits of the case, it was revealed that the wife was a practicing advocate and she was in a position to maintain herself. In the light of the documents presented, the Court held that the petition filed under Section 12 of the Act was filed under concealment of facts and hence shall be considered afresh.
Taking a serious note of the unethical practice by certain advocates of using the identity of another advocate using his name and enrolment number, the Court observed that an advocate has an independent identity and personality. It takes years to shape the personality and build an image. This image works all through his life. Lot of dedication, commitment, sincerity and impeccable integrity is required to generate and sustain an image. Using somebody else’s identity and name is most sacrilegious act. Supplementary investigation was ordered against Advocate Pal Singh Yadav, for impersonation, stealing and using the identity of another advocate by using his name and enrollment number. The Court issued restraining orders against him from entering the premises of the High Court, Lucknow Bench, the Family Court, the Court of District Judge, Lucknow and other courts subordinate to him. [Chiranjeev Kumar Arya v. State of UP, 2016 SCC OnLine All 486, decided on June 29, 2016]
