The general principles of res judicata can be applied to proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and a decision of a civil court in a matrimonial case is binding on a criminal court in subsequent maintenance proceedings, provided that the parties are the same, the issues are the same, and the facts and circumstances have not changed.

JUDGMENT - PURANIK S.W., J.: - This petition tinder section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, while invoking the inherent powers of this Court, raises an interesting question of law dealing with the proceedings for grant of maintenance under section 125. of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, and the Sessions Judge, upholding the claim of the respondent Kusum against her husband-petitioner Baburao regarding the maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The respondent Kusum had filed proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati vide Misc. Criminal Application No. 58 of 1977, against the petitioner-husband Baburao on the ground that the petitioner had refused and neglected to maintain her and that she was entitled to claim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250 per month. In the said proceedings, the present petitioner had filed his written statement on 7-10-1977, denying these allegations. He also referred to a Hindu Marriage Petition bearing No. 26 of 1974, on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, preferred by his wife Kusurn against him, praying for judicial separation on the ground of cruelty by the husband, on the ground of desertion by the husband and on the ground that the husband has married again and has issues from his second wife. On these grounds, the said matrimonial proceedings were commenced and after due contest on 28-9-1977, the said petition came to be decided, whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed the petition. The petitioner therefore contended that no maintenance is liable to be granted to the wife Kusurn. At the time of the decision of the maintenance proceedings, the learned Magistrate held that the Hindu Marriage Petition is entirely a different matter, while the maintenance proceedings are independent in nature and he would not be bound by the said decision.

3. In the Criminal Revision bearing No. 50 of 1979, preferred by the husband before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, the order of the maintenance was confirmed and the revision petition was dismissed. There also the husband-petitioner had urged regarding the earlier decision in the Hindu Marriage Petition and had claimed that the maintenance proceedings are not liable to be granted in favour of the wife. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, also held the view that proceeding under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are independent in nature and the decision of the civil Court in its matrimonial jurisdiction is not binding on these proceedings.

4. It is against these concurrent findings, that the petitioner has come up, invoking the inherent powers of the High Court. Shri J. N. Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the brief facts of the case, as well as of the marriage petition and contended that the proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are essentially civil in nature and if there be a decision between the same parties, on the same set of facts before the civil Court, the same should be binding on the Criminal Court and the maintenance proceedings are liable to be dropped. He also referred to the general principles of res judicata and its applicability to the criminal proceedings.

5. Shri Singhai, the learned Advocates for the non-applicant urged that when under Criminal Procedure Code concurrent findings have been granted by both the Courts below and any further revision or appeal is barred under the Code, the High Court would not exercise its inherent powers to upset the said findings. He further urged that the proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are independent in nature and the decision in < the matrimonial jurisdiction of the civil Court would not be binding on the Criminal Courts. Me also urged that the respondent wife had established her case to the satisfaction of the trial Court, as wel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document