The decision of the Civil Court in a maintenance suit is binding on the Criminal Court in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT - B.G. KOLSE-PATIL, J.:---This is a Criminal Application filed by the petitioner (original opponent) against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.

2. The petitioner and the 1st respondent (original applicant) were legally wedded on 12-5-1967 as per Hindu religious rites. It was the second marriage of the petitioner which was performed after the death of his first wife who left behind a daughter from that marriage. After their marriage, the petitioner and the 1st respondent started residing at Neral in Taluka Karjat, District Raigad. In the initial period their relations were normal. However, thereafter, the petitioner and his mother started ill-treating the 1st respondent in the various ways. She was starved, harassed in various other ways by the petitioner and his mother. The petitioner's abnormal sexual appetite subjected respondent No. 1 to physical sufferings. When she went to see her ailing brother on 31-10-1967 the petitioner was inceased out on her return. She was severely assaulted and was forced out of her marital home in the month of December 1967. Ever since, she has been residing with her brother at Pimpri. She has no source of income and hence she has to depend on her brother. The 1st respondent, therefore, claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month since the date of the filing of the maintenance application.

3. The present petitioner, who was respondent to the said application, filed his written statement denying the allegations of the 1st respondent. While admitting that the 1st respondent is his wife, the petitioner contended that it is the 1st respondent who is not willing to reside with him at her marital home. Hence she has come out with various imaginary incidents. He denied that he refused or neglected to maintain the 1st respondent and stated that she refused to stay with him without any justification. The petitioner also contended that the 1st respondent is in a position to maintain herself. He also denied that his monthly income is Rs. 1,500/-. According to him, he gets monthly salary of about Rs. 800/- only.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (A.C.) Pune who heard the application, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent was able to maintain herself and that she had no just and sufficient reasons to reside separately from the petitioner. The learned Magistrate further held that the petitioner had offered to maintain the 1st respondent which offer she had refused. Consequently, the application was dismissed without any order as to costs. It may be mentioned here that the 1st respondent had earlier filed a similar maintenance application which was withdrawn by her. Thereafter she also filed a civil suit for declaration that she was entitled to reside separately and for maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The said suit was dismissed on merits. No appeal was filed by her against the said order. The learned Magistrate unfortunately did not refer to the said civil suit in his judgment.

5. The learned Additional Judge, while allowing the revision filed against the order of the learned Magistrate, granted maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month, and observed that the principle of res judicata or double jeopardy would not come into play as the present proceedings were of a summary nature. According to me, the learned Sessions Judge has missed a vital point in coming to the said conclusion. The proceedings in the Civil Court are substantial whereas the proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are of a summary nature. Once the Civil Court of a competent jurisdiction comes to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 is not entitled to maintenance, the Criminal Court, under section 125, cannot sit in appeal over the said decision. This itself, without anything more, is sufficient to set aside the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge. Even section 127(2) of the Criminal Proc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document