Jallarapu Laxman Rao v Jallarapu Pedda Venkateswarlu, MANU/AP/0778/2017
In this case, the Telangana High Court decided whether a revision under section 397 and 401 CrPC was maintainable against an interim order passed u/s23 of the DV Act. The bench discussed the case of Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/1432/2008 where it was observed that orders contemplated by section 23 of the DV Act were discretionary in nature. It observed that when a remedy by way of appeal is provided under the special statute, petitions under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India or section 482 CrPC for quashing are not maintainable.
The High Court held that it can entertain a revision, only if it finds an apparent error in the findings recorded by the subordinate courts and not otherwise. After scrutinising the views of the various High Courts on this issue, the High Court observed that the said criminal revision petition and the connected miscellaneous application are not maintainable and left it open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under section 29 of the DV Act.
Rakesh Kumar v Nishu, MANU/HP/0373/2019
In this case, the core issue dealt is the discretionary power of the magistrate and that there should not be unnecessary interference of the appellate court unless there is manifest error on point of law or there has been a miscarriage of justice in the orders passed by the lower court.
Dismissing the petition filed by the husband, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the power being discretionary, has to be exercised judicially and not lightly. In this matter, after relying on a few judgments, the High Court came to the conclusion that there was no error or any contradiction with regards to the order passed by the magistrate. Hence, the court upheld the order of residence passed by the magistrate which had been affirmed by the sessions court, which was perfectly in accordance with law and did not warrant any interference. It was held that there should be no interference as there was no perversity in the orders passed by the lower courts.