Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38098
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
JALEEL – Appellant
Versus
FASEELA – Respondent
OP(Crl.) 123/2023
The Grama Nyayalaya has jurisdiction to adjudicate maintenance claims under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as per Clause (v) of the Grama Nyayalaya Act, 2008.
Headnote:(A) Grama Nyayalaya Act, 2008 - Clause (v) of the first schedule of Part-II - Jurisdiction of Grama Nyayalaya to deal with maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Petitioner challenged the order directing payment of maintenance, asserting lack of jurisdiction - Court held Grama Nyayalaya has jurisdiction as per the Act. (Paras 2, 4, 6)
(B) Appeal - Section 33 of the Act - No appeal lies from judgment of Grama Nyayalaya except as provided under Section 33(2) - Court found the original petition was not maintainable. (Paras 4, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Grama Nyayalaya's order directing payment of Rs.11,000/- per month as maintenance, which was later modified post the remarriage of the first respondent.
Findings of Court:
The Grama Nyayalaya has jurisdiction under the Act to address applications under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the original petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Issues: The primary issues were the jurisdiction of the Grama Nyayalaya regarding maintenance claims and the maintainability of the original petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Grama Nyayalaya has the jurisdiction to adjudicate maintenance claims under the relevant provisions of the Grama Nyayalaya Act, dismissing the petitioner's objections.
Result: Original petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order dated 13.01.2023 issued by the Grama Nyayalaya, Kuttiady, in C.M.P .No.377/2022 in M.C.No.10/2016.
Petitioner was the respondent in the above proceedings. By an order dated 27.03.2017, the Grama Nyayalaya issued an order directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- per month from the date of the order.
Since no amounts were paid by the petitioner, C.M.P .No.377/2022 was filed by the respondents for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,37,000/- 2. An objection was raised by the petitioner before the Grama Nyayalaya stating that the said forum does not have the jurisdiction to consider an application under Section 125 Cr.P .C. Discarding the aforesaid objection, the Grama Nyayalaya noticed that no challenge was raised against the order dated 27.03.2017, directing payment of maintenance. However, it was observed by the Grama Nyayalaya that the first respondent herein had remarried on 20.05.2019, and therefore, the maintenance need to be paid only till the aforesaid date. Therefore, it was directed that the payment of Rs.11,000/- should be from the date of the order, i.e., 27.03.2017 till 20.05.2019 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.3,667/- to respondents 2 and 3. The aforesaid order is under challenge.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Grama Nyayalaya is not having the jurisdiction to deal with the claim under Section 125 Cr.P .C. It was also submitted that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that as per Clause (v) of the first schedule of Part- II of the Grama Nyayalaya Act, 2008 (for short, ‘the Act'), the said authority has the jurisdiction to deal with an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It was further pointed out that no appeal had been preferred either against the impugned order or against the main order under Section 33 of the Act, and this original petition ought not to be entertained.
5. I have considered the contention.
6. A perusal of Clause (v) of the first schedule of Part- II of the Act reveals that an order for maintenance of wives, children, and parents under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 r/w Section 12 of the Act is a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the Grama Nyayalaya.
Hence, the contention raised by the petitioner in that regard is rejected.
7. Section 33 of the Act provides that no appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order of a Gram Nyayalaya other than those excluded under Section 33 (2) of the Act. Since the impugned order falls within the category of cases that can be appealed against, I am of the view that this original petition ought not to have been entertained.
Accordingly, I find no merit in this original petition and it is dismissed.
