O R D E R

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2013 in M.C.No.48 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court, Pondicherry and quash the same.

2.The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Earlier, the petitioner filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.48 of 2006 before the Family Court, Pondicherry, which was dismissed by the trial Court by an order dated 18.07.2007, against which, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.1285 of 2007.

3.This Court by an order dated 25.04.2011 set aside the order of the trial Court and found that the petitioner is entitled to maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month from the respondent from the date of petition and directed the respondent to pay the amount, against which, the respondent /Husband approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court dismissed the petition. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2013 under Section 127(1) Crl.R.C with a prayer to alter the order of maintenance in M.C.No.48 of 2006 for subsequent charge in circumstances and she is not entitled for maintenance and sought for modification.

4.The trial Court entertained the petition and kept pending for quite some time, thereafter, the respondent/husband filed a Criminal O.P.No.11788 of 2016 before this Court seeking for earlier disposal of Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2013 and the petitioner herein also participated in the same. Thereafter, this Court passed a conditional order on 04.07.2016 directing the petitioner/Husband to pay the arrears of maintenance to his wife Renuka and directed the case could be listed on 06.10.2016 for reporting compliance. On 06.10.2016, this Court found that the petitioner already complied with the direction of this Court and directed the Family Court, Puducherrry, to dispose of Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2013 in M.C.No.48 of 2006 within a period of six months. At this stage, the petitioner/wife has filed this quash petition.

5.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Courts below erred in taking cognizance of petition in Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2013 filed under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C, no scope of dismissal of M.C.No.48 of 2006. The prayer sought in Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2013 is unknown to law beyond the scope of Section 127 CR.P.C. Hence, filed this quash petition.

6.He further submitted that earlier the respondent herein filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the order passed in Crl.R.C.No.1285 of 2007 and the same was not entertained. Thereafter, the respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2013, which is beyond the scope of Section 127 Cr.P.C. Further, submitted that by filing of such petition, the respondent is attempting to drag on the proceedings and failing to pay the maintenance amount as ordered by this Court. The only grievance now is that in the event of the respondent directed to proceed with Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2013, the petitioner should be permitted to adduce oral or other evidence. The petitioner admits receiving demand draft of Rs.15,75,000/- on 03.01.2022.

7.Counsel for the respondent submitted that in obedience to the order in Crl.O.P.No.11788 of 2016, demand draft for Rs.15,75,000/- handed over. Thereafter, proceeded with trial in Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2013 by examining three witnesses including one Income Tax Officer. The petitioner herein participated in the proceedings, failed to cross examine none of the witnesses examined, on the other hand, approached this Court, obtained stay. Due to which, Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2013 could not be progressed. Hence, the direction issued by this Court order dated 06.10.2016 in Crl.O.P.No.11788 of 2016 to dispose of Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2013 in M.C.No.48 of 2006 within a period of six months could not be complied.

8.He further submitted that the respondent has got no objection for the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses and his contention is that the petition filed under Section 127(1) CR.P.C. is maintainable, which is approved by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.11788