C. KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. NAGADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed for quashing of the impugned order dated 29.10.2013 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 125/2013 by the learned Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bellary dismissing the application seeking modification of the earlier order dated 10.10.2013.

(2.) IT is seen from the records that the respondents herein have obtained an order of interim maintenance of Rs. 500/ - each to the respondents. On 18.12.2009. Thereafter, it appears the petitioner was required to make payment of the entire arrears. As per the admission of both counsels, during the pendency of the proceedings, an application was filed under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. and a direction was issued to the petitioner to pay the entire arrears of maintenance. Order sheet also discloses that on 12.04.2010, a petition was filed under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. in the same proceedings in M.C. No. 1/2009. On 08.07.2011, the trial Court passed an order on I.A. No. III directing the respondent to pay the entire maintenance as already ordered, dismissing I.A. No. 3.

(3.) THE order dated 10.10.2013 is not challenged before this Court. Instead of challenging the same, the petitioner has filed an application for modification of the order before this Court. However, in my opinion, the order dated 10.10.2013 in permitting the petitioner to cross -examine the witness subject to the condition that he has to pay or deposit the entire arrears of maintenance due within 7 days is not proper. In such an order is allowed to continue then the Court has proceed with the matter and has pass an exparte order, granting maintenance on merits also. The order passed by the learned Magistrate on 10.10.2013, though he has no jurisdiction to modify the same under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., in my opinion, this Court has the power to modify the said order, if genuine reasons are shown. In this regard it is worth refer to Section 125(3) of the Act which reads as follows: