Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The advocate for the respondents was not present. Keeping in view the general importance of the matter, this Court requested Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad, Advocate to assist this Court as amicus curaie. He was gracious enough to accept the request and made detailed submissions.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondents were granted interim maintenance by the matrimonial Court on 21-9-90. They were also granted maintenance by the Criminal Court by orders dated 6-2-1991 in M.C. No. 12/90. Thus, from the date of Criminal Court order the petitioner is being made to pay maintenance twice - one under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and another under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. He thus submits that he is liable to pay only one set of maintenance and not both. Hence the matrimonial Court erred in not modifying the interim maintenance order.

7. On the other hand, Sri Prasad, submits that the order of matrimonial Court and Criminal Court are quite different and they are passed to achieve different purposes. He further submits that there is no bar for claiming and receiving the maintenance apart from the interim maintenance granted by the matrimonial Court pendente lite. The orders do not overlap each other and that they are required to be executed in accordance with respective provisions of law.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Mamata Rani v. Raj Kumar 1985 (1) HLR 496 to support his contention that the wife is not entitled for the maintenance twice. I have perused the said decision and I find that there is no discussion on the subject. Mr. Prasad relies on Danda Chanchaiah v. Danda Mangamma 1968 (2) Andh WR 98 : (1969 Cri LJ 684). In the said case the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate Darsi, under Section 488 Cr.P.C. awarding maintenance of Rs. 40/- was challenged on the ground that the husband filed application for restitution of conjugal rights and the date is pending in the Civil Court under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. Rejecting the contention raised on behalf of petitioner, the Court observed thus, "The object of Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code is the prevention of vagrancy and to provide neglected wives and children a cheap and speedy remedy. This remedy is irrespective of other remedies such neglected wives and children may have under their personal law or under any statute. The existence of other more efficacious remedy is no bar to the maintainability of a petition under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. Indeed it is irrelevant. Similarly the pendency of other proceedings where the status of the parties is in question or where a husband seeks some matrimonial relief is no bar to the maintainability of a petition under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. Nor can the proceedings under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code be made to await the result of such other proceedings. Otherwise the object of Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code providing for a cheap and speedy remedy will be frustrated. However, where a competent Civil Court declares the rights of the parties, the Magistrate passing an order under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code is empowered to cancel or suitably vary the order. This is provided under Section 489(2), Criminal Procedure Code and this provision amply protects the rights of the parties as may ultimately by determined by the Civil Courts."

I am afraid, I am not able to subscribe to the view of the learned Judge. The scope and purpose of two proceedings are different and distin ct. The proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act are quite independent in as much as the interim maintenance granted under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is only for a temporary period during the pendency of the proceedings before the matrimonial Court, whereas the amount awarded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 125 is not for a limited period, but is for a period during which the wife and other dependants of the husband are neglected. It is only after final verdict of the Civil Court, declaring of their respective rights, the husband may approach the Criminal Court to cancel or vary the order of maintenance.

10. Considering the pronouncements of the Supreme Court and various High Courts, it is clear that the proceedings under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are different and that they are invoked for different purpose before the Courts of competent jurisdiction. They do not overlap over the other. The proceedings under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act are only invoked to meet a special situation where the proceedings are pending before the matrimonial Court and to withstand the litigation the uncared wife is provided with succour (maintenance) pendente lite. The benefit granted under Section 24 is purely temporary in nature and gets extinguished after the matter is finally decided. It is only after the rights of the parties are finally decided, the party seeking cancellation on variation can approach the Criminal Court under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore I am of the opinion that during the operation of the order of interim maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, the maintenance granted by the Criminal Court under Section 125 shall also continue to be paid. In that way the petitioner is required to comply with both orders of matrimonial Court and Criminal Court till the final decision is rendered by the Civil Court. Thus, there is no illegality with the impugned order of the matrimonial Court and accordingly the C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs.