S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS criminal revision case is directed against the order passed in M. C. No. 25 of 2002 on the file of the Family court, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, awarding maintenance of Rs. 1,000- to the wife being the first respondent herein and rs. 750/-each to the 3rd and 4th respondents and awarding Rs. 750. 00 towards maintenance from the date of petition up to September, 2002 to the 2nd respondent herein.

( 2 ) THE facts that arise for consideration can be briefly stated as follows: the first respondent herein is the wife of the revision petitioner and their marriage took place on 20-5-1976 as per Christian rights and customs and their marriage was consummated. Respondents 2 to 4 are the children born to them. Respondents have claimed maintenance against their father being the revision petitioner herein at the rate of Rs. 3,000. 00 per month to each petitioner alleging that the revision petitioner is working as P. C. 7497 and drawing salary of Rs. 8,000. 00 per month. A petition under section 32 of Indian Divorce Act is said to have been filed where under the Court has directed the first respondent to join the company of the revision petitioner. The wife is said to have presented a complaint for the offence under Section 498-A IPC before the women Police Station, North Zone, secunderabad, for alleged harassment and demanding of dowry etc. Another complaint in C. C. No. 28 of 2000 in the Court of XI metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, has also been presented for taking away 1st and 4th respondents. As the matters stood thus, m. C. No. 25 of 2002 has been taken up for trial and Respondents 1 to 4 are examined as P. Ws. 1 to 4 and the revision petitioner is examined as R. W. I. It appears that affidavits have been accepted towards chief examination and Advocate Commissioner has been appointed to conduct cross- examination. This Court has to consider whether such procedure can be adopted while dealing with the case on criminal side.

( 3 ) BEFORE adverting to the merits of the case, it is necessary to have a look at section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and rules, hereinafter referred to as the act , reads as under: section 10: "procedure generally : (1) Subject to the other provisions of this act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and of any other law for the time being in force shall apply to the suits and proceedings (other than the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), before a Family Court and for the purposes of the said provisions of the code Family Court shall be deemed to be a civil Court and shall have all the powers of such Court. (2) Subject to the other provisions of this act and the rules, the provisions of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or the rules made thereunder shall apply to the proceedings under Chapter IX of that code before Family Court. (3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) shall prevent a Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject-matter of the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by the one party and denied by the other. "it is also necessary to refer Section 15 of the act as under:section 15: "record of oral evidence: In suits or proceedings before a Family Court, it shall not be necessary to record the evidence of witnesses at length, but the Judge, as the examination of each witness proceeds, shall, record or cause to be recorded, a memorandum of the substance of what the witness deposes, and such memorandum shall be signed by the witness and the Judge and shall form part of the record. "hence, it is clear from Section 10 of the Act that the provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 or the rules made thereunder shall apply to the proceedings under chapter IX of the Code before a Family court.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document