RAJENDRA NATH SINHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application filed under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by an order No. 28 dated 28th June, 1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Second Court at Asansol in matrimonial Suit No. 54/96 renumbered as 107 of 1997. The application may be stated in brief together with its background : that this petitioner/husband instituted a matrimonial suit for dissolution of marriage under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In course of the proceeding the opposite party/wife preferred an application under section 24 of the Act praying for Rs. 2,500/- as maintenance pendente lite. The opposite party/wife happened to be an employee of I. C. D. S. project in the district of Purulia and drawing a salary of Rs. 525/ -. In the written objection it was so stated together with the fact that the wife in the meanwhile in a proceeding under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code at raghunathpur Court got an order dated 25. 7. 1998 for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- beforehand she was allowed Rs. 300/- as interim maintenance. The aforesaid order has already been complied by the petitioner. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Hon'ble Court by way of preferring a revisional application as CRR No. 2310 of 1998 but this court was pleased to dismiss the said application. On 28. 6. 1999 the learned second Additional District Judge allowed maintenance pendente lite under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. Hence this petition has been filed.

( 2 ) NONE appeared on behalf of the opposite party/wife. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner had urged solely on the ground that he is in a predicament as the Criminal Court has already allowed Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party this Matrimonial Court also allowed Rs. 1,500/- as maintenance pendente lite. Thus, there is apprehension of double jeopardy and making the payment twice.

( 3 ) THE apprehension as has been expressed at the Bar by Mr. Mukherjee is completely unfounded as the alimony pendente lite under section 24 of the Hindu marriage Act is for a temporary period. The order passed by the learned magistrate was quite before the date of passing the impugned order. Admittedly the finding of a Civil Court under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act may be adjusted during such period for which the alimony pendente lite so awarded under section 4 of the Act subsists whereas the allowance which has been awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate under section 125 Cr. P. C. is not for a limited period, but is for period during which the wife is being neglected and refused to be maintained by the husband.

( 4 ) MR. Mukherjee learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that in the impugned order No. 28 dated 28. 6. 99 itself the learned Judge has referred that she has filed a petition under section 125 Cr. P. C. before the learned Judicial magistrate, Raghunathpore, and the learned Magistrate has directed the husband to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month to the wife. Mr. Mukherjee contends that the oblique reference of the aforesaid factum goes to show that despite the criminal Court's order of maintenance the impugned order was passed, thus, making it obligatory on the part of his client to make payment in both the courts. In such a situation it is admitted position of law that a Civil Court finding or order has binding effect on the Criminal Court. The avowed object of section 125 Cr. P. C. is to prevent vagrancy and provide a summary procedure so that the wife and other dependants do not suffer. Any order passed under section 125 is neither a bounty nor a bonanza in addition to any finding and/or award of any amount by the Civil Court. Law does not provide for mode of enriching anybody. The amount paid in pursuance of this order is subject to adjustment by the Criminal Court. More so, the impugned order does not go to show that the amount of Rs. 1,500/- has be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document