Nomenclature Is Immaterial: HC Can Convert Petition U/S 482 CrPC to Revision U/S 397 and Vice Versa, Says SC

Post By 24law
December 18, 2024

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the nomenclature of a petition is irrelevant and that High Courts have the authority to convert a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC into a revision under Section 397 CrPC, and vice versa, to ensure substantive justice. This observation was made while hearing an appeal challenging a judgment of the Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had dismissed a wife’s petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking an enhancement of interim maintenance.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta criticized the High Court’s decision, stating, “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.”

Case Background

The appellant wife had been granted interim maintenance by the Principal Judge, Family Court, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance, she filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC in the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking enhancement. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that it was not maintainable as the appellant had an alternative remedy of filing a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Apex Court emphasized that procedural technicalities should not obstruct the delivery of substantive justice. Referring to its earlier rulings, the Bench stated, “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 Court also cited Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan and Another (1977), which held that the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 397 CrPC cannot alone justify dismissing an application under Section 482 CrPC. The Bench observed, “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.”

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remanded the matter for reconsideration. It directed the High Court to convert the appellant’s petition under Section 482 CrPC into a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC and adjudicate it in accordance with the law. By doing so, the Apex Court underscored the principle that procedural technicalities should not hinder access to justice, particularly in cases affecting personal and financial well-being.