Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 7 docs - [View All]
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 125 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 24 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Citedby 7 docs - [View All]
K.R. Sagayaraj vs Mrs.C. Rajammal on 12 November, 2010
Srimati Tilatoma Das vs Sri Rabindra Kumar Das on 23 November, 2000
Ashok Nath Singh Panwar vs Upasna Panwar And Anr. on 20 April, 1993
G. Sundara Babu vs Smt. Udaya Bhanu And Anr. on 21 November, 1990
T. Rajender Singh vs Maya Devi Alias Gayatri And Ors. on 28 November, 1995

User Queries
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Premium Member services are free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Madras High Court
G. Ramanathan vs Revathy on 16 March, 1989
Bench: D Annoussamy

ORDER

1. This is a petition by the husband under S. 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings for maintenance instituted by the wife respondent under section 125 Cr.P.C.

2. The case put forth by the husband is that the petition was filed before the Magistrate's Court three years after the alleged desertion and therefore there was no emergency as alleged in order to invoke the quick remedy contemplated under section 125 Cr.P.C. He further stated that a divorce proceedings was already pending before the competent civil Court viz., S.P. No. 97 of 1984 and that it was open to the respondent to claim maintenance before that Court under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the wife contended before me that the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. and the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act are two independent proceedings and therefore even during the pendency of a proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act it was open to the concerned person to seize the Magistrate. The scheme contemplated under Chap. IX of the Cr.P.C. is one meant to meet emergent situations which the civil Courts cannot decide immediately, and which would cause disorder in the society. That is why it is made part of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Secondly such a provision was introduced for the first time (a) when there was not a complete network of civil Courts all over the country and (b) when the law regarding maintenance was still at a nebulous stage. Now there is a full-fledged law of maintenance, and also a full-fledged law regarding marriage and divorce. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act contemplates maintenance pendente lite and S. 25 of the Act contemplates the grant of maintenance at the time of the decree or even at any time subsequent thereto on application by the concerned person.

4. When a competent Civil Court has already (sic) of the matter and when it is possible without incurring any expenditure or any other inconvenience to approach, by way of a simple petition, the Civil Court so as to obtain maintenance, it is not proper on the part of the wife to go before the Magistrate for an order. The proper course is to approach the Civil Court which is already seized. Further under S. 127 of the Cr.P.C. if an order regarding maintenance is passed by the competent Civil Court, the Magistrate should have to set aside its own order which is more in the nature of a temporary measure made after a summary hearing to meet an emergent situation. Therefore the fact of seizing the Magistrate when the competent Civil Court has been already seized would cause only judicial waste of time since the order obtained is ultimately liable to be cancelled. I therefore come to the conclusion that the institution of a proceeding under S. 125, Cr.P.C. when a civil proceeding is already pending between the parties under the Hindu Marriage Act is against the scheme of law contemplated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Chap. IX of the Cr.P.C.

5. In the result, the Cr. Misc. Petition is allowed and the proceedings in M.C. No. 5 of 1985 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sankaridurg are quashed

6. Petition allowed.