D. J. JAGANNADHA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS criminal revision case filed by the wife and the minor child arises out of Cri. M. P. No. 674 of 1989 in M. C. 23/88 on the file of IInd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati.

( 2 ) THE first petitioner P. Jayalakshmi was married to the respondent Ravichandran who was working as a postman in Bangalore. The marriage was solemnized on 3-6-1987 at Thirachanoor near Tirupathi. The parents of the first petitioner reside at Tirupathi. The couple resided at Bangalore where the husband was working. Subsequently troubles arose and the wife was sent away. The husband filed a petition under Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights on 3-11-1988 in M. C. No. 573/88 in the Family Court at Bangalore. Subsequently on 19-12-1988 the wife filed a petition in the Magistrate s Court at Tirupathi seeking maintenance under section 125, Cr. P. C. in M. C. 23 of 1988. During the pendency of M. C. the first petitioner and her child-minor second petitioner filed Crl. M. P. No. 674/89 seeking interim maintenance during the pendency of maintenance case. The Magistrate allowed the petition and granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100. 00 per months for the wife and Rs. 50. 00 per month for the minor child. The interim maintenance was directed to be paid from the date of the application i. e. 24-4-1989.

( 3 ) THE husband challenged the Magistrate s order by filing Crl. R. P. No. 42/89 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Chittoor. The Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 27-11-1989 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate. The basis for the order passed by the Sessions Judge, is anterior to the filing of the application for maintenance in the Magistrate s Court, the Family Court at Bangalore was approached by way of M. C. 573/88 and hence the wife is not entitled to file an application for maintenance in the criminal court when the civil proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act are pending in the Family Court.

( 4 ) THE order passed by the Sessions Judge is now under challenge in this revision. Sri R. V. Prasad contends that Family Court exercises jurisdiction for the particular area for which the Court is constituted and hence the jurisdiction of the Magistrate s Court at Tirupathi to entertain the application for maintenance under section 125, Cr. P. C. is not excluded. He also contends that the right to seek maintenance under section 125, Cr. P. C. is an independent right and the pendency of O. P. under the Hindu Marriage Act is no bar for the maintainability of the petition under section 125, Cr. P. C. It is true the Courts have held in numerous decisions that the right to seek maintenance under section 125, Cr. P. C. is an independent right and the pendency of the proceedings under Hindu Marriage Act is no bar for its maintainability. If authority is needed for the proposition the decision is D. Chenchaiah v. D. Mangamma, (1968) 2 Andh WR 98 : (1969 Cri LJ 684 ). The further question that arises in this case is what is the effect of the Family Courts Act of 1984 with regard to the claim of parties in this case. Does the right to claim maintenance under section 125, Cr. P. C. subsist when there is a proceeding pending in the Family Court. Mr. Chandra Sekhara Reddy, appearing for the respondent-husband contends that in this case as the Family Court took cognizance of the proceedings earlier, the latter petition under section 125, Cr. P. C. is not maintainable. The Family Courts Act excludes the jurisdiction of other Courts and that Act has overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith there with contained in any other law.

( 5 ) IT is clear from the language of Section 3 of the Family Courts Act that the State Government can constitute Family Courts for a city or town whose population exceeds one million. Judge of the Family Court is appointed by the State Government with the concurrence of the High Court. The jurisdiction is to be determi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document