Criminal Petition No.6024 of 2009 by the husband against the wife and minor son is for quashing the proceedings in M.C. No.31 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudivada for maintenance to the wife and minor son, on the ground that the wife already filed C.C. No.490 of 2007 and D.V.C. No.6 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudivada and H.M.O.P. No.81 of 2007 for divorce and I.A. No.125 of 2008 therein for maintenance before the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam against the husband, while the husband filed O.P. No.45 of 2006 for restitution of conjugal rights. The husband claims that the wife cannot claim maintenance both in I.A. No.125 of 2008 and M.C. No.31 of 2007 simultaneously. law seeking quashing of the proceedings in D.V.C. No.2 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandalur, as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and amounting to double jeopardy, as Crime No.65 of 2008 of Nandalur police station under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is pending in pursuance of the complaint by the 2nd respondent and in view of the wife living separately from the husband since prior to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 coming into force as admitted by her in O.P. No.27 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur.

Criminal Petition No.6072 of 2009 is filed by the son against the parents for quashing the proceedings in M.C. No.49 of 2009 on the file of Family Court, Guntur filed by the parents for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as D.V.C. No.5 of 2009 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur by the mother for residence, is pending and the son cannot be proceeded against for the same set of reliefs on the same set of facts and cause of action.

All the three petitions, though between different parties, are heard together as involving identical questions of law of frequent recurrence. The issues of fact raised by the petitioners respectively are not being gone into, as any deep probe into such questions of fact in issue is beyond the province of a restricted and summary enquiry in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and these petitions cannot be the appropriate proceedings, wherein any conclusive findings of fact can be arrived at. As such, the consideration herein is confined to the maintainability or otherwise in law of the proceedings sought to be quashed.

Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, Sri C.V. Bhaskara Reddy and Sri T. Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for the respective petitioners and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, are heard. At the request of the Court, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel also assisted the Court in appreciation of the questions involved.

No notices are being ordered to the other respondents in the criminal petitions, as the matters are being disposed of at the stage of admission.

The legal rights and liabilities arising out of matrimony or relationship by blood or adoption are respectively governed by the relevant personal laws of the parties to a judicial proceeding qualified by any Statutes and Statutory Rules governing the subject matter of the dispute before the Judicial Forum.

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 codifying the law relating to marriage among Hindus, provided for petitions for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9, judicial separation under Section 10, divorce on specified grounds under Section 13 and divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B. The jurisdiction and procedure are prescribed by Chapter V of the Act. Section 24 provides for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings where it appears to the Court in a proceeding that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expen