ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The judgment in Title (Maintenance) Suit No. 01 of 2009 has been challenged by the wife on various grounds including the findings rendered on issue No.4 framed in the said suit. 2. This First Appeal was admitted for hearing by an order dated 5th February 2018 and the lower Court records have been placed before us. 3. On 10th February 2022, the following order was passed by this Court: “Order No.15/Dated: 10th February, 2022 On repeated calls, no one appears for the respondent. Today is 15th day of date of listing of this First Appeal for hearing. By an order dated 12th September 2017 notice to the respondent was issued by the Court and after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent by an order dated 20th November 2017 delay of 145 days in filing the present First Appeal was condoned by the Court. The proceedings in the present First Appeal disclosed that on 3rd February 2020, 5th November 2020 and 10th December 2020 no one appeared for the respondent. By an order dated 10th December 2020, the learned counsels appearing for the parties were directed to file their written notes and compilation of judgments, if any. This order of the Court has not been complied with by the parties. Since this First Appeal is listed for hearing before us for the first time, we are inclined to adjourn the matter for a short date. Post this matter on 15th February 2022 under the heading “Final Disposal”.” 4. Mr. Akshay Kumar Mahato, the learned counsel for the respondent has joined the Court proceedings through virtual mode. 5. Title (Maintenance) Suit No. 01 of 2009 was instituted by the wife seeking the following reliefs: (i) maintenance of Rs. 8,000/-per month under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act; (ii) an order of injunction against payment of settlement to the defendant Nos.2 and 3; (iii) attachment of post retiral dues payable to the husband and; (iv) return of Rs. 2,50,000/- which was value of her ornaments (stridhan). 6. At the outset, we may observe that the issues framed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Title (Maintenance) Suit No. 01 of 2009 do not indicate application of mind by the learned Court. 2,50,000/- which was value of her ornaments (stridhan). 6. At the outset, we may observe that the issues framed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Title (Maintenance) Suit No. 01 of 2009 do not indicate application of mind by the learned Court. We find that in paragraph No.10 of the judgment dated 2nd August 2016 the learned Family Court Judge has himself recorded that no issue was framed for return of stridhan. The learned Judge has further held that the said issue does not fall within the scope and ambit of section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, though no issue was framed in this regard. 7. The provisions under Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure indicate that issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other. Rule 1(4) to Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that issues are of two kinds (i) issues of fact and (ii) issues of law. Rule 3 provides how the issues are framed on the basis of the materials placed before the Court. More significantly, under Rule 5 to Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit. By now, it is a well settled proposition that the powers under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code can be exercised by the Courts suo moto or on an application made by a party to the suit. 8. The Family Courts Act, 1984 provides that a Family Court shall have and exercise all the jurisdictions exercisable by any district Court or any subordinate Court under any law in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation to section 7. Therefore, a Family Court shall have plenary jurisdiction in terms of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to try all issues as provided under the Act. This is fundamental in law and as would appear from the phraseology employed in section 7 of the Family Courts Act as well as section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court is under a legal obligation to adjudicate upon the reliefs sought in the suit. This is fundamental in law and as would appear from the phraseology employed in section 7 of the Family Courts Act as well as section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court is under a legal obligation to adjudicate upon the reliefs sought in the suit. We record with dismay that the learned Family Court did not even refer to the foundational facts and reliefs sought by the appellant. 9. In paragraph No.10 of the judgment dated 2nd August 2016 the learned Family Court Judge has observed as under: “10. On perusal of the issues, it is significant that no issue has been framed for return of stridhan and more significantly question of stridhan does not fall within the scope and ambit of section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and as such any return of stridhan as alleged by the applicant is beyond scope of the present suit. However, considering the evidence on the record, it is also significant to mention that marriage was solemnized almost about 40 years back and retention of stridhan after 40 years of marriage is neither appealing nor it convinces the judicial mind, more so, in absence of documentary evidence in support of existence of any stridhan. Further, as per the case of the applicant herself, she is living separately since the year July, 2006 and even while instituting the case u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. no utterance of stridhan was made. Thus, this court finds that no order in the present case can be passed in respect of stridhan. Finally coming on to the last issue, the court also holds that applicant is not entitled to any other relief or reliefs. It is therefore, ORDERED That the present case in so far as it relates to maintenance the same is allowed in terms of the order passed in Misc. Case No. 218/11 and to that extent the suit is decreed on contest without cost. The applicant is not entitled to any other relief. Office to prepare decree accordingly.” 10. In “Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma” (2014) 14 SCC 452 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that irrespective of grant of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the wife can claim maintenance under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,1956. 11. The applicant is not entitled to any other relief. Office to prepare decree accordingly.” 10. In “Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma” (2014) 14 SCC 452 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that irrespective of grant of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the wife can claim maintenance under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,1956. 11. In “Rajnesh v. Neha” (2021) 2 SCC 324 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the scope of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,1956 is quite distinct and independent. 12. In paragraph No. 60 of the reported judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “60. It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes. For instance, there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the DV Act and Section 125 CrPC, or under HMA. It would, however, be inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceeding. If maintenance is awarded to the wife in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under another enactment. While deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the civil court/Family Court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant.” 13. In view of the above position in law on the subject under consideration, we are of the opinion that the judgment dated 2nd August 2016 in Title (Maintenance) Suit No. 01 of 2009 warrants interference by this Court and, accordingly, the judgment dated 2nd August 2016 and decree prepared on 19th August 2016 are set-aside. 14. Title (Maintenance) Suit No. 01 of 2009 is restored to its original file. 15. The learned Family Court Judge shall post the matter for final hearing and after hearing both the parties pass the judgment within next three months. 16. FA No. 48 of 2017 is allowed, in the aforesaid terms.