Judgment: Oral Judgment: This application is filed, challenging the final judgment and order passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Criminal Revision Application No. 226/1994 dated 28 January, 2000 confirming the order passed by the 6th Jt. Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Latur in Criminal Misc. Application No. 156/1992 dated 30th September, 1999. 2. It is the case of the applicant that on 11.5.1980 the applicant husband and the respondent No. 1 had performed marriage as per their customs. The couple lived together till the delivery of their first child i.e. respondent No. 2 Kalawati. 3. On 10th September, 1988 the respondent wife had been to her parents home. The applicant had visited the place of his in-laws and attempted to bring his wife back. The parents of the wife were reluctant to sent her with the applicant. It was assured that after Makar-Sankrant of 1987, she will return back to her matrimonial home. However, she did not turned back. On 10.9.1988 when the applicant was out of station, the respondent wife returned back their matrimonial home along with one Mallikarjun Madhavrao Patil. Unfortunately, it was noticed that during the stay of Mallikarjun in their house on the particular date in the late night hours the respondent wife and said Mallikarjun were noticed to be staying in a room locking the doors of the bed room from inside. They did not opened the door and it was required to be broke open by the parents, his brother and other neighbours of the applicant husband by using force. This circumstance proved the illicit relationship of the respondent wife with said Mallikarjun. On 11.9.1988 the respondent wife left the matrimonial home permanently with said Mallikarjun and has not turned back till date. 4. On 30th September, 1994 the respondent wife approached the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Latur by filing a maintenance petition. The same was finally allowed by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 30.09.1994. 5. On28.10.1994 the applicant husband had filed a revision application before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Latur. The same was finally dismissed on 20.1.2000 by the Revisional Court. 6. The applicant had filed a divorce petition against the respondent wife with the Principal Civil Court at Bidar which is still pending and wherein the interim alimony has been granted to the extent of Rs.450/- per month payable to the respondent wife. 7. The same was finally dismissed on 20.1.2000 by the Revisional Court. 6. The applicant had filed a divorce petition against the respondent wife with the Principal Civil Court at Bidar which is still pending and wherein the interim alimony has been granted to the extent of Rs.450/- per month payable to the respondent wife. 7. The Magistrate has awarded Rs.300/- to the wife and Rs.250/-to both the minor kids. The total amount awarded comes to Rs.550/-. Both the Courts are issuing recovery warrants wherein, the applicant has paid the amount. Not only this, the recovery warrants are addressed to his employer and therefore, they are straightway deducting the salary and forwarding it to the courts concerned. The double fold recovery for the same cause is not permissible. 8. The applicant has challenged the orders passed by the Courts below, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for preventing the abusing of process of law. This Court granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause "C" on 7.2.2001. Today matter is taken up for final hearing. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the main question which is required to be considered in this case is whether the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur trying the application under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, was obliged under law to stay the proceeding on the ground that the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction at Bidar has seized the matter, in the suit, in which identical pleadings are made by the respondent No. 1, the same reliefs are claimed by one and the same applicant/respondent No.1 herein in whose favour the Magistrate has already awarded interim maintenance. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant has already filed petition under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage before the Principal Judge, Bidar. In said pending proceedings the present respondent No. 1 wife had filed miscellaneous application for interim maintenance and the concerned Civil Court has allowed the application of the respondent wife holding that she is entitled to recover interim maintenance of Rs.450/- p.m. from the present applicant from the date of the order till the disposal of the case. In said pending proceedings the present respondent No. 1 wife had filed miscellaneous application for interim maintenance and the concerned Civil Court has allowed the application of the respondent wife holding that she is entitled to recover interim maintenance of Rs.450/- p.m. from the present applicant from the date of the order till the disposal of the case. He further submitted that since the petition filed by the present applicant under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage is pending before the Civil Judge, Bidar, in which already interim maintenance is granted to the respondent wife. He further submitted that in view of this position that already interim maintenance is granted to the wife by the Civil Court, Bidar, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur should have stayed the proceedings initiated by the respondent wife under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance in view of law laid down by this Court in the case of Ravindra Haribhau Karmarkar V. Shaila Ravindra Karmarkar and another, reported in (1992 (1) Mah.L.R. 246). He submitted that the findings given by the Civil Court are binding on the Criminal Court. Since the matter was seized with the Civil Court Bidar in respect of maintenance allowance and that to the similar amount which she alleged to be entitled in the application under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur should have stayed the further proceedings till the final decision of the Civil Court, Bidar. 11. Though the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are served, none appears for them. The learned A.P.P. appears for the respondent No. 4 State. On direction of this Court, the learned A.P.P. assisted the Court to put forth the case of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 before me. The learned A.P.P. fairly conceded that the present case is covered by the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Ravindra Haribhau Karmarkar V. Shaila Ravindra Karmarkar and another, reported in (1992 (1) Mah.L.J. 246). 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. None appears for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 though served. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. None appears for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 though served. In my considered view, in stead of going in to detail facts of the case, it would be suffice to say that the question which is raised in this application, is answered by this Court in the case of Ravindra Haribhau Karmarkar V. Shaila Ravindra Karmarkar and same question is no more res-integra. The case in hand is fully covered by the principles laid down by this Court in the above mentioned case. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur should have stayed the proceedings under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code when he was informed about the fact that already the Civil proceeding is pending at Civil Court, Bidar. In a petition filed by the applicant for dissolution of marriage, the respondent wife, who was applicant before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur praying for maintenance, had already filed Misc. Criminal Application No.2/1993 before the Civil Court, Bidar for interim maintenance and on her application, Civil Court Bidar had ordered the interim maintenance to the respondent wife at the rate of Rs.450/- p.m. In view of the factual position and law laid down by this Court in the judgment cited above, I have no hesitation to hold that since the interim maintenance was already granted by the Civil Court, Bidar to the respondent wife, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Latur should not have proceeded further to adjudicate the application of the respondent wife for maintenance. Therefore, the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur in Criminal Misc. Application No. 156/1992 on 30th September, 1994, allowing the application of the respondent wife for maintenance, was contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned case. The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur on 30th September, 1994 in Misc. Application No. 156/1992 was contrary to the law laid down by this Court, therefore, the revision which was filed by the present applicant before the Sessions Judge, Latur should have been entertained, however, the revision came to be dismissed. In my considered view, the applicant has made out the case. 13. The application is allowed. Application No. 156/1992 was contrary to the law laid down by this Court, therefore, the revision which was filed by the present applicant before the Sessions Judge, Latur should have been entertained, however, the revision came to be dismissed. In my considered view, the applicant has made out the case. 13. The application is allowed. The judgments and orders passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Criminal Revision Application No. 226/1994 passed on 20th January, 2000 and the judgment and order passed by the learned 6th Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Latur passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 156/1992 dated 30th September, 1994 are quashed and set aside. The application is allowed and finally disposed of.