ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) praying the Court to quash the order dated 20.07.2024 passed in Crl.MP.No.41 of 2023 in MC.No.21 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

2. The said Crl.MP., was filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., praying to permit them to amend or alter claim of maintenance from Rs.15,000/- per month to Rs.20,000/- per month to each, towards maintenance, from the date of petition, and Rs.50,000/- towards legal expenses. The said Crl.MP., was allowed vide order dated 20.07.2024 permitting the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein to amend the maintenance case and also for consequential amendments sought for by them and for carrying out amendment and to file neat copy of the same.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner who is respondent in the said Crl.MP., filed this petition praying to quash the said order.

4. Heard Sri Karnam Ramesh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 – State, and Sri M.Achuta Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the order passed by the trial Court in a petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., permitting the respondents to amend the maintenance petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is contrary to Section 10(1) and (2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short ‘Act 1984’). He contended that the impugned order is contrary to the procedure contemplated under Sections 125 to 128 as the Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C., containing the provision of alteration in allowance itself is a scheme containing the procedure under which all the application, substantial and corollary shall be considered and any travel beyond the said scheme would be without jurisdiction. He asserted that the appropriate provision for alteration in allowance can be made only under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., and not under any other provision.

6. In addition to the above, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court ought to have seen that the maintenance case filed by the respondents was dismissed with respect to respondent No.1 and allowed granting Rs.5000/- in respondent of respondent No.2 vide order dated 03.01.2019 and aggrieved by the same, Cr.R.C.No.173 of 2019 was filed which was disposed of vide order dated 20.12.2022 remanding the matter to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of same afresh by following the procedure contemplated under Section 126 of Cr.P.C., for recording evidence in view of the fact that earlier disposal was made basing on the evidence and affidavits filed by the parties, as such, the scope of remand cannot be enlarged and respondents cannot be permitted to amend the maintenance case.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner incessantly contended that the trial Court has misapplied Section 10(3) of the Act, 1984 in order to adopt the procedure contemplated under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., and erred in allowing the petition. He lamented that the trial Court ought to have seen that when a specific provision relating to alteration or amendment of maintenance is contemplated under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., applying Order VI Rule 17 would be without jurisdiction, particularly when Clause-II of Section 10 of the Act, 1984 mandates that procedure contemplated under Cr.P.C., or the Rules made there under shall be applied to the proceedings under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C., even before a Family Court.

8. In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2020 (2) ALT (Criminal) 131 whereunder, a specific provision was contemplated under Cr.P.C., for specific purpose of application of any other provision for the said purpose even to the Family Courts is impermissible. Therefore, prayed this Court