Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
I.S. Tiwana, J.
Devinder Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Asha Rani - Respondents
Criminal Misc. No. 766-M and 767 of 1987 (O&M).
Decided On : 9 March, 1987
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Scope of maintenance under Section 125 vis-a-vis maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a stay of proceedings initiated by his wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, citing a judgment and arguing that the maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act should thwart the claim of the respondent-wife under Section 125.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the scope of the two inquiries under the above-noted sections is entirely different, and maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot thwart the claim of the respondent-wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which settles the matter finally.
Issues: Scope of maintenance under Section 125 vis-a-vis maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the scope of the two inquiries under the relevant sections is entirely different, and maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot thwart the claim of the respondent-wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which settles the matter finally.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.
I.S. Tiwana, J. - The petitioner, who has initiated proceedings against his wife-respondent No. 1 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in a Court at Patiala, wants the stay of the proceedings launched by her under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at Khanna, for herself and on behalf of her minor child Amit Kumar-respondent No. 2. In support of his stand the learned Counsel places reliance on a judgment of this Court reported as Om Parkash v. Smt. Jai Devi, 1977 P.L.J. Cr. 54. I, however, find that not only that there is a chain of authorities, such as : Dr. Rameshcahndra Shambhubhai Yadav v. Dhirajgavri w/o Dr. Rameshchandra Shambhubhai, 1982 H.L.K. 465; Vadapalli Sathyavathi v. V.V.S.N. Raju, 1979 Crl. L.J. NOC 144; Velukutty v. Prasanna Kumari, 1986(1) HLR 109; and Prem Nath Sarvan v. Prem Lata Sarvan, 1987 P.L.R. (Delhi) 24; wherein a contrary view has been taken, but also for the reason that the scope of the two inquiries under the above noted sections is entirely different he is not entitled to relief prayed for. The grant of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot possibly thwart the claim of the respondent-wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which settles the matter finally. Moreover, in the instant case no maintenance has concededly been allowed in favour of the minor child by the Court of Patiala.
2. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this petition and the same is thus dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
