DHANI RAM Vs. SANTOSHI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 5-7-2011 passed by the Judge, Family Court (Link Court), Sakti in Case No. 17/2010, whereby the Judge, Family Court has passed the order of interim maintenance to the respondents herein under Section 125 of the Cr.PC against the petitioner herein, i.e., father-in-law of respondent No. I and grand-father of respondent No. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and copies of other documents.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents herein have not filed any petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, but they have specifically filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.PC, therefore, they are not entitled for maintenance against the petitioner herein under Section 125 of the Cr.PC.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents opposes the petition and submits that the respondents are entitled for maintenance in terms of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Therefore, only on the ground of misquoting of sections or provisions, right of the respondents cannot be denied.