Judgment : ARUNACHALAM, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER Kandasamy is the husband of respondent Sivakami. Sivakami preferred M. C. 7 of 1988 under Section 125 Crl. P. C. before Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Erode, claiming monthly maintenance from the petitioner. It is the case of the respondent, that she had married the petitioner according to Hindu custom on 5. 3. 1969. Both of them lived happily as husband and wife for about one year at Rakiagoundan Pudur. Petitioner is a travelling Ticket Examiner. After about a year respondent found out that the petitioner had several evil habits. She bore with patience, but she had to lose her jewellery due to the misconduct of her husband. Petty quarrels arose between them. Petitioner inflicted cruelty on her. She was deserted from the matrimonial home. Petitioner also commenced living with Saraswathy alias Kuppai Ammal as husband and wife, after entering into a form of marriage. She was residing with her mother and was unable to maintain herself. Practically her life was one of starvation. In that background she filed O. S. No. 779 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Erode, pleading for maintenance from her husband. Though she had claimed Rs. 175/- per month, the Civil Court directed the petitioner to n pay her a monthly maintenance of Rs. 100/ -. The Civil Court pronounced orders on 31st December, 1983. Respondent stated before the enquiring c Magistrate, that except payment of Rs. 2,100/- towards the maintenance decree, petitioner had not paid any other sum towards maintenance inspite of the decree, till she preferred the impugned maintenance application. She further stated that the petitioner was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/ -. Due to escalation of cost of living, she was unable to maintain herself and hence she pleaded for a monthly award of Rs. 500/- as maintenance. ( 2 ) PETITIONER countered the claim of the respondent and stated that he did not inflict cruelty on his wife. He refuted having married Saraswathi alias Kuppai Ammal, or even residing with her as husband and wife. He stated, that at the time of marriage, he had provided for his wife six sovereigns of jewellery, though her parents gave her a gift often-sovereigns of gold jewellery. Since the respondent had a better status, she was unable to pull on with him which led to hatred between themselves. He stated, that at the time of marriage, he had provided for his wife six sovereigns of jewellery, though her parents gave her a gift often-sovereigns of gold jewellery. Since the respondent had a better status, she was unable to pull on with him which led to hatred between themselves. Respondent on her own accord went away to her parental house. While doing so without informing him, she took away the entire jewellery. In spite of his efforts of bring back his wife to his family-fold, through panchayatdars, nothing fruitful happened. Respondent pleaded for divorce and later allowed it to be dismissed. Respondent has sufficient funds and is earning by lending out her monies on interest. He affirmed obtaining of a maintenance decree from the civil Court. He further alleged that the respondent was living with one Sengottain. In short his case was that the impugned maintenance proceedings had been initiated purely with a view to harass him. ( 3 ) THE Inquiring Magistrate, before whom the petitioner and the respondent examined themselves apart from marking some exhibits, on appreciation of the evidence placed before him, found that the respondent was entitled to be maintained by the petitioner. In that view he directed the petitioner to pay every month Rs. 300/-to his wife from the date of petition. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED petitioner has chosen to invoke the revisional powers of this court to have the maintenance award set aside. The main ground of attack is that once the respondent had obtained a decree for maintenance from the Civil Coon, the criminal court has no jurisdiction at all to entertain a petition under section 125 Cr. P. C. at all according to the petitioner the only remedy open to the respondent will be to approach the Civil Court over again, pleading for enhancement in the quantum of maintenance. As a corollary, it was submitted, that the Magistrate was not an appellant authority to the Civil Court, which had passed a decree for maintenance and therefore the application for maintenance ought to have been returned. ( 5 ) IT was also contended that the learned Magistrate while awarding main tenancy of Rs. 300/-, had failed to take note of the Civil Court decree awarding Rs. 100/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. ( 6 ) ON these contentions, I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. ( 5 ) IT was also contended that the learned Magistrate while awarding main tenancy of Rs. 300/-, had failed to take note of the Civil Court decree awarding Rs. 100/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. ( 6 ) ON these contentions, I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. He submitted that a maintenance decree passed by the Civil Court docs not ipso facto take away the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under section] 25 Cr. P. C. and depending upon the facts of each case, the Magistrate had not only the right, but sufficient jurisdiction to award maintenance to the aggrieved wife especially when the decree of the Civil Court itself, remained as a paper decree and only a paltry sum had been paid by the petitioner to his wife. Further the learned Magistrate was justified in taking note of the increased cost of living, especially if the social purpose of the salutary provision has to be taken note of. ( 7 ) I have carefully considered the divergent contentions placed before me by either Counsel. ( 8 ) THE very issue involved in this revision, has been considered by this Court in Govindasami Mudaliar v. Muthulakshmi Ammal. Sadasivam, 1. held that a decree of a Civil Court for maintenance in favour of the wife was not a bar for initiating proceedings-under section 488 Cr P. C. is that decree had become in executable for some reason or other but the wife was able to satisfy conditions contemplated under section 488 Cr. P. C. (Present section 125 Cr. P. C.) Further the learned Judge held, that the existence of a civil decree for maintenance in favour of the wife was not a bar for initiating proceedings under section 488 Cr. P. C. when the wife was not in a position to realise any amount under that decree as the husband had no means to pay the decree amount. The question whether a decree of a Civil Court would bar an action under Section 488 Cr. P. C. would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It was further stated by Sadasivam, J, that there was nothing in section 488 Cr. P. C. that the existence of a Civil Court decree would ipso facto bar a proceeding under that section. The rights of parties were generally governed by Civil Court decrees determining them. P. C. would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It was further stated by Sadasivam, J, that there was nothing in section 488 Cr. P. C. that the existence of a Civil Court decree would ipso facto bar a proceeding under that section. The rights of parties were generally governed by Civil Court decrees determining them. Thus, if on the question of status the Civil Court were to find that there was no relationship of husband and wife between the petitioner and the respondent, it would obviously bar a Criminal Court from entertaining a petition under section 488 Cr. P. C. But, if a decree passed in a Civil Court becomes un-executable for some reason or other and the wife is able to satisfy conditions contemplated under section 488, Cr. P. C. she could claim relief. That was a case where the wife got a decree for maintenance from the Civil Court at the rate of Rs. 15/-per month and was content to execute the decree for maintenance till she came forward with the petition under section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was clear that the husband had neither any property nor income from which he can pay. The decision of Sadasivam J, was affirmed by S. Natarajan, J. (as he then was) in Linga Gounder v. Raman, (minor rep by mother and guardian, ). In that case a petition was filed for maintenance by the mother on behalf of the minor, illegitimate child under section 125 (1) Cr. P. C. (1973 ). The principal defence was that on account of a maintenance decree passed by a Civil Court in favour of the minor son, an independent application under section 125 (1) (b) Crl. P. C. was not maintainable. It was held that the existence of a civil decree for maintenance cannot operate as a bar, to a proceeding -for obtaining maintenance being instituted, under the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Judge has referred to the decision of Maharajan, J. in P. Krishnammal v. A. Mahadeva Iyer. P. C. was not maintainable. It was held that the existence of a civil decree for maintenance cannot operate as a bar, to a proceeding -for obtaining maintenance being instituted, under the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Judge has referred to the decision of Maharajan, J. in P. Krishnammal v. A. Mahadeva Iyer. The learned Judge further observed that the manner in which Section 489 (2) in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 was framed and Sub section (2) of section 127 of 1973 Code was worded, would clearly show that the Civil Courts pronouncement to have an impact on the order of maintenance made by a Magistrate, it should have been later in point of time. There was nothing in section 127 (2) to show that if there had been an earlier decree by a Civil Court, a Magistrate must confine his award only to the quantum fixed by the Civil Court. The question as to how far a decree of a Civil Court can have an impact on proceedings for maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code, will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The learned Judge also stated that whatever amounts were collected by the respondents in execution of the maintenance order, in the proceedings will be given credit to in any execution petition filed by him in respect of the Civil Courts decree and vice- versa any amount realised in execution proceedings before the Criminal Court. ( 9 ) THE Delhi High Court in Kuldeep Kumar v. Smt. Chander Kanta, chose to concur with the view expressed by Sadasivam J. and S. Natarajan J. The learned Judge of the Delhi High Court, (Jam J.) observed that the question whether a decree or an order of a Civil Court, would by an order under section 125 of the Code, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. A mere order of permanent alimony or maintenance is not equivalent to maintaining the wife and cannot oust or take away f tie jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Such an order will be relevant only in considering what form of order the Magistrate should make. Section 125 contain no direction that an order under that section cannot be made if there was a decree for maintenance of a Civil Court. Such an order will be relevant only in considering what form of order the Magistrate should make. Section 125 contain no direction that an order under that section cannot be made if there was a decree for maintenance of a Civil Court. The Magistrate has a real discretion and though he must exercise it judicially he cannot be asked to surrender it even where the Civil Court is satisfied that the husband is bona fide prepared to maintain the wife; Under section 125, a person can be compelled to make allowance for maintenance of his wife, children etc. It has nothing to do with their rights to maintenance. The Civil Courts determination as to relationship and maintenance may be taken into consideration while making, varying or canceling the order under section. 127 Cr. P. C. But on the basis of section 127 (2), it cannot be said that, as an order made under section 125, has got to be varied and cancelled in consequence of a decision of the competent Civil Court, such an order cannot and should not be made at all. M. S. Nesargi, J of the Mysore High Court in B. M. Pattanshetti v. Parvatayya, held that civil courts maintenance decree does not bar proceedings under Section 488 and the question whether the decree would bar action under section 488 (1898) Cr. P. C. would depend on the facts of each case and the finding that the parties husband and wife, would be conclusive in proceedings initiated under section 488 Cr. P. C. The judgment of Sadasivam, J. in 1966 Cr. L. J. 732 was relied upon. 9. Maharajan, J. in Nagendra Iyer v. Premavathi, considered the jurisdiction of criminal courts under sections 488 to 490 (1898) Cr. P. C. and that of the Civil Court, regarding maintenance. The scope, duty and discretion of the Magistrate were considered The learned Judge observed that under provisions in Corporate in the Criminal Procedure Code deserted wives and children were enabled to get cheap and expeditious relief. But for these remedies they would be compelled to resort to the cumbrous and more time-consuming process of civil law. The scope, duty and discretion of the Magistrate were considered The learned Judge observed that under provisions in Corporate in the Criminal Procedure Code deserted wives and children were enabled to get cheap and expeditious relief. But for these remedies they would be compelled to resort to the cumbrous and more time-consuming process of civil law. It must not, however, be forgotten that the proceedings before the Criminal Court are summary in character and its jurisdiction is auxiliary to that of a Civil Court, which is the final arbiter in the matter of adjudication of civil rights as well as upon the civil status of the parties concerned. The learned Judge observed as follows: it may be that where the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Civil Court and the Criminal Court is the same and where on account of insolvency or otherwise, the Civil Court should refuse to execute the decree against the husband or father, it would be proper for the Criminal Court, after a consideration of the relevant circumstances to enforce the order under section 488 Cr. P. C. , But, where no such handicap exists in enforcing the Civil Court decree, the Criminal Court would be judicially exercising its discretion in refusing to enforce its order concurrently with the decree of the Civil Court. Likewise, where the parties can have the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Civil Court, varied by the Civil Court itself, on proof of relevant circumstances, the Magistrate will be exercising his discretion Judicially by refusing to reduce or enhance the allowance under section 489 (1) Cr. P. C. Otherwise the parties will be engaged in an unholy competition to exploit the concurrent jurisdiction of the civil and Criminal Courts and procure from one Court, orders which would have the effect of frustrating the orders of the other. In order to prevent conflict of decisions and with a view to avoid an unseemly confrontation between the civil and the Criminal Courts, the Magistrates will be wise in such circumstances to refuse to reduce or enhance the allowance when there is a Civil Courts decree fixing the quantum of maintenance and binding upon the parties. The proper thing for the Magistrate to do is to refer the party to the Civil Court. The proper thing for the Magistrate to do is to refer the party to the Civil Court. This view-of Maharajan, J, as stated earlier, was referred to by S. Natarajan, J. (as he then was) in Linga Gounders case (1977 Law Weekly Criminal, 188 ). It is in that context S. Natarajan, J. observed is follows: A Civil Courts decree might have been passed seven years ago and it will be hardly fair to the claimants to say that in spite of the passage of several years and the increase in the cost of living, the Criminal Court should confine its award only to the figure fixed by the Civil Court and not give a higher maintenance after taking into consideration relevant features, such as the rise in prices or the growing need of the wife, children etc. , Of-course, It the Civil Courts decree was quite proximate in point of time, the Magistrate may take note of the decree passed by the Civil Court infixing the quantum of maintenance. ( 10 ) ON the width of authority referred to by me, with which I respectfully agree, it cannot be held, that the Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under section 125 Cr. P. C. solely because the respondent has already obtained a decree for maintenance, from the Civil Court. ( 11 ) IT is quite true, that it will be possible for the respondent to approach the Civil Court for enhancement of the quantum of maintenance. As observed by Maharajan, J, this process would not only be time consuming but auld as well be not an effective remedy for even earlier the respondent had to file an execution petition to obtain arrears of maintenance from her husband. It has been clearly stated in the petition for maintenance filed on 15. 9. 1987 that she was able to get form her husband only Rs. 2,100/- in pursuance of the maintenance decree. The decree was passed on 31. 12. 1 983 and for four years till she filed the petition for maintenance, the respondent was able to recover only Rs. 2,100/ -. The remedy under the Criminal Procedure Code is not only quick, but is intended to prevent vagrancy. 2,100/- in pursuance of the maintenance decree. The decree was passed on 31. 12. 1 983 and for four years till she filed the petition for maintenance, the respondent was able to recover only Rs. 2,100/ -. The remedy under the Criminal Procedure Code is not only quick, but is intended to prevent vagrancy. Wives should not be left in the lurch by their husbands on the ground that the decree of the Civil Court can be allowed to be executed, while the wife will be made to lead a life of starvation, without being able to get at the fruits of the Civil Courts decree. On the facts placed before me, I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate has correctly exercised his judicial discretion in having entertained and allowed the petition under section 125 Cr. P. C. preferred by the respondent. ( 12 ) THE argument that the learned Magistrate had not taken into account the maintenance decree of the Civil Court, cannot be accepted, for, the Magistrate was well aware of the maintenance decree passed by the Civil Court, and in spite of such a decree, the respondent having approached him, under section 125 Cr. P. C The question of the Magistrate having disposed of the maintenance petition, as though he was an appellate authority to the Civil Court, does not at all arise. ( 13 ) LEARNED Magistrate has and, that the petitioner was clearing a monthly salary of Rs. 2,542/- and his claim that he was taking home only Rs. 1,200/-every month, cannot be accepted. The salary of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 2,000/ -. If that be so, it cannot stated, that the award of a monthly maintenance of Rs. 300/-to the respondent, is in any manner excessive. I have to reiterate the observations of S. Natarajan, Js. in Linga Gounders case (supra) which read as follows: Whatever amounts are collected by the respondent in execution of the maintenance order, in these proceedings, will be given credit to in any execution petition filed by him in respect of the Civil Courts decree and, vice versa any amount realised in execution proceedings before the Civil Court will be given credit to in execution proceedings before the Criminal Court. This revision that has no merit shall stand dismissed. Revision dismissed.