The Family Court has the authority to lay down its own procedure for settlement and adjudication, including the recording of common evidence in related civil and criminal matters.

Mridula Bhatkar, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the Writ Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. In this Writ Petitioner, the petitioner/husband has challenged the order dated 18th March, 2014 and 19th January, 2015. The respondent/wife has filed the petition bearing no. A-250 of 2013 against the petitioner/husband under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. She has also filed the petition bearing No. E- 122/2013 under section 125 of Cr. P.C. for grant of maintenance. By the order dated 18th March, 2014 the learned Judge of the Family Court, Nashik directed both the parties that common evidence is to be recorded in Petition No. A-250 of 2013 and the matters can be disposed of by the common judgment. Thereafter, common evidence was produced by the respondent/wife at Exhibit 20. At the request of petitioner/husband, the matter was adjourned and it was fixed on 27th November, 2014. However, the advocate of the petitioner/husband refused to take cross-examination. So, order of No cross-examination was passed. Then he moved an application for setting aside order of No Cross. Application Exhibit 34 was allowed and petitioner/husband was allowed to cross-examine but cost of Rs.2,000/- was imposed. Again, the petitioner/husband filed Application Exhibit 35 for recalling the order dated 18th March, 2014 passed by the Family Court of common recording and common disposal of two petitions. The learned Judge of the Family Court while rejecting the said Application on 19th January, 2015 has observed that her predecessor, who retired on 31st August, 2014, has passed the order on 18th March, 2014 and till then the petitioner/husband did not move any application before that Judge. The learned Judge did not find any merit in the matter and therefore, rejected the Application and directed the parties to proceed with the matter.

3. The learned counsel Mr. Tajane submitted that the Family Court has no power to pass the order of common recording of evidence in the criminal matter and civil matter which are filed in the Family Court. He submitted that for criminal matters filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C., a procedure of summons cases under Criminal Procedure Code is required to be followed and the civil procedure is not applicable to those matters, therefore, under section 10 of the Family Court Act, the Court has no power to merge the proceedings. He further submitted that under section 10(3) of the Family Court Act, in the matter of settlement of the parties, the Court can adopt its own procedure, however, the civil and criminal matters cannot be merged, as he loses his right of Appeal if section 125 matter is clubbed and decided.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the submissions are not in consistent with the legal position under section 10 of the Family Court Act.

5. Section 10(3) of the Family Court Act, 1984 reads as under:

(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.

6. It is true that the procedure adopted while conducting matters under section 125 is under section 126 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, one has to understand that matters under section 125 are not purely criminal of nature, but proceedings are of quasi civil nature, as issue of maintenance to wife is involved and therefore, the respondent is not an accused and statement under section 313 is not recorded while dealing section 125. So, the proceedings under section 125 are not treated as purely and strictly criminal proceedings, though the power to issue warrant is given to the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner/husband has not properly interpreted sub-section (3) of Section 10 of Family Court Act.

7. Chapter IV of the Family