Point of Law :
law on the issue stands crystallized to the effect that the findings of fact recorded by the Civil Court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice-versa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal cases it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of Sections 41 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous Judgments in subsequent case may be taken into consideration.

JUDGMENT :

A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J.

1. Aggrieved by the Order, dated 21.09.2019, passed in O.P.No.475/2015 by the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Family Court had dismissed the petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellant herein seeking extension of time for paying the maintenance amount, allowed I.A.No.300 of 2019 filed by the respondent herein, and dismissed the main O.P. on the ground that the appellant herein has not complied with the order passed in I.A.No.1192 of 2017, dated 19.12.2018, and which was confirmed by the High Court in C.R.P.No.242 of 2019, the present Appeal is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein had filed O.P.No.475 of 2015 seeking annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”), against the respondent herein. It is the case of the appellant that though the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.12.2014, in accordance with the Hindu Temple rites, the same could not be registered with the Registrar of Marriages, Hyderabad, as the respondent, who was a divorcee, could not produce the divorce decree, which she has stated to have obtained from a competent Court. Subsequently, the appellant discovered that in fact the respondent had not filed for the divorce. Instead, it was her first husband who had filed for divorce before the Family Court, Hyderabad. The O.P. filed by the first husband was numbered as O.P.No.847 of 2000, and decree of divorce was granted on 28.06.2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent had filed a Family Court Appeal before the High Court and the same was pending. It is the further case of the appellant that during the pendency of O.P. No.475 of 2015 filed by the appellant herein for divorce, the respondent herein had filed I.A.No.1192 of 2017 seeking an interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act; the Family Court has awarded an interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of petition, besides awarding Rs.20,000/- towards legal expenses, and also directed the appellant herein to pay the arrears in three equal monthly installments commencing from January, 2019, and also to pay the monthly interim maintenance on or before 10th of every succeeding calendar month. Aggrieved by the orders of the Family Court in granting interim maintenance, the appellant had preferred a Civil Revision before this Court and the same was numbered as C.R.P.No.242 of 2019. Vide order, dated 19.03.2019, this Court had dismissed the said C.R.P. holding that the interim maintenance granted by the lower Court was not exorbitant in view of the status of the parties. Thereafter, the respondent herein had filed I.A.No.300 of 2019 seeking dismissal of the main O.P.No.475 of 2015 on the ground that the appellant herein has not paid the interim maintenance and legal expenses contrary to the orders of the Family Court and High Court. The Judge, I Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, vide order, dated 14.09.2019, granted time to the appellant herein till 21.09.2019, to comply with the order passed in I.A.No.1192 of 2017, dated 19.12.2018, granting interim maintenance. Subsequently, the appellant had filed an Interlocutory Application seeking extension of time by four weeks for complying with the order passed in I.A.No.300 of 2019, dated 14.09.2019, ostensibly on the ground that he wanted to prefer a Civil Revision Petition against the order, dated 14.09.2019. Vide order, dated 21.09.2019, the Family Court has dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein seeking extension of time for payment of the interim maintenance and legal expenses; the learned Family Court allowed I.A.No.300 of 2019 filed by the respondent herein, and dismissed the main O.P. on the ground that the appellant herein has not complied with the order passed in I.A.No.1192 of 2017, dated 19.12.2018, and which was confirmed by the High Court in C.R.P.No.242 of 2019 vide order, date