Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1984 DIGILAW 929 (ALL)

Pushpa Devi v. Anup Singh

1984-11-12

K.C.DHULIYA

body1984
JUDGMENT K.C. DHULIYA, J. 1. THIS Criminal Revision has been filed by Smt.Pushpa Devi against the Judgment and order of VII Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh dated 20-10-1981 in Criminal Revision No. 234 of 1981. 2. THE facts in brief are that Smt.Pushpa Devi and opposite party, Anup Singh, are wife and husband and were married in accordance with Hindu Law. Smt.Pushpa Devi filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 125, Cr PC for maintenance allowance. During the course of proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, Anup Singh filed an objection on the ground that in Divorce Petition Smt.Pushpa Devi is already getting monthly allowance at the rate of Rs. 170/-. THE Magistrate rejected the application of opposite party, Anup Singh on 30-7-1981. Aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate, Anup Singh filed a Revision before the Sessions Judge. Learned VII Additional Sessions Judge took up the stand that since the applicant is already getting maintenance allowance in Divorce Petition, as allowed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the application under section 125 is dismissed. 3. LEARNED counsel for the applicant has contended that the allowance awarded to the applicant under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is for a temporary period during the pendency of the Divorce case. Apart from the fact that that allowance cannot be considered to be the maintenance allowance, in as much as that covers the part of the expenses 4. IN my opinion the proceedings under Section 125, Cr PC are quite independent proceedings, even if she has been allowed maintenance pendentilite under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. The maintenance allowance under Section 24 as observed by me above is far a temporary period. It is true that the Magistrate while passing an order may give such direction so that the amount awarded by the Civil Court under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act may be adjusted, during such [period for which the maintenance allowance so awarded under Section 24 subsists. The provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot override the provisions of Section 125, Cr PC. Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is for a period during which the matrimonial proceedings are pending in the Civil Court. The provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot override the provisions of Section 125, Cr PC. Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is for a period during which the matrimonial proceedings are pending in the Civil Court. Whereas the allowance which is awarded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 125, Cr PC is not for a limited period, but is for a period daring which the wife or other dependent of the husband are neglected by him and the wife refuses to live with her husband. The view that I am taking is supported by a decision of this court in Ram Singh v. State, AIR 1963 AIR page 355 in which a single Judge of this court has held that the provision of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act are independent of section 488 Cr PC (the corresponding old provisions in the Old Code). The decision referred to by the learned Sessions Judge in 1980 ACRR 70, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. That was a case in which the application of Premwati was rejected by the Magistrate and her Revision was dismissed and Hon'ble Deokinandan, J. while dismissing the Criminal Misc. Application under section 482 CPPC has made reference that since divorce proceedings have been filed in the Civil Court, it will be better that the maintenance allowance is availed in that proceeding. With respect I do not agree with the view that was taken by Hon'ble Deokinandan, J. but since' this Revision application stands on a different ground, I do not think it proper to refer the case for the decision by a larger bench. 5. THE Revision that was filed against the order of the Magistrate dated 30th July, 1981 before the Sessions Judge, in my opinion, is an interlocutory order. THE proceedings were pending before the Magistrate, and during the course of proceedings an objection was raised by Anup Singh that In a Divorce case Rs. 170/- per month had already been allowed against him, in favour of Smt.Pushpa Devi. Learned Magistrate rejected the application of the opposite party. Sub-section (2) of Section 397 Cr PC clearly creates a bar for entertaining the Revision against interlocutory order by the Sessions Judge. 6. IN view of the above discussion this application succeeds and the case is remanded back to the Trial Magistrate for expeditious hearing. Learned Magistrate rejected the application of the opposite party. Sub-section (2) of Section 397 Cr PC clearly creates a bar for entertaining the Revision against interlocutory order by the Sessions Judge. 6. IN view of the above discussion this application succeeds and the case is remanded back to the Trial Magistrate for expeditious hearing. However, it is made clear here that the Trial Court will give due weight to the order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as indicated above. Application allowed.