BALAN Vs. PANKAJAKSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The discord between a husband and wife with a stepmother in between is the cause of this revision petition. When this petition came up for hearing before me there was a fervent appeal by the petitioner husband that he was prepared to take back his wife, the first respondent here, and live with her amicably. He exhibited undue anxiety to get her back. He appeared before me and showed. extreme affection and love towards his wife. I, therefore, directed the parties to be brought before Court. They came to Ernakulam and I was told by counsel appearing for the respondents that there was no love lost between the husband and wife and there was no possibility of any reconciliation. Hence the revision was heard on merits.

(2.) The first respondent wife filed MC. No. 14 of 1972 under S.488 Cr. P. C. on 10-4-1972 against the petitioner claiming maintenance for herself and her three children, who are respondents 2 to 4 in this revision. O. S. No. 84 of 1972 on the file of the Munsiff of Ottappalam was filed by the wife on 15-3-1972 claiming maintenance for herself and her children. The said suit is pending. When the petition under S.488 Cr. P. C. came up before the lower Court, a preliminary objection was raised that in view of the pendency of a civil suit, wherein also maintenance is claimed, the lower Court was barred from proceeding with the petition under S, 488 Cr. P. C. It is worthwhile mentioning here that on 6-4-1972 the petitioner husband had filed O. P. No. 6 of 1972 before the Munsiff's Court, Ottappalam for restitution of conjugal rights. There is also another suit pending before the Ottappalam Munsiff's Court, which was filed by the petitioner against the first respondent here and her stepmother, numbered as O. S. No. 281 of 1970, which was a suit to set aside the assignment deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the first respondent and her stepmother. It is said that this suit is the apple of discoid between the parties. The lower Court repelled the preliminary objection raised and it is against this that the present revision is filed.

(3.) The only contention raised before me is that the pendency of the civil suit, wherein the identical question is raised, operates as a bar for the Magistrate to hear the petition filed under S.488 Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate observed that the pendency of the civil suit cannot be a bar for trial of the petition under S 488 Cr. P. C. According to him, proceedings under S.488 Cr. P C. are provided as a cheap and speedy remedy and the parties cannot be expected to wait till the civil suit is disposed of, which can be subjected to first appeal and second appeal. The learned Magistrate also felt that even if the order of maintenance is passed by him and a decree is passed subsequently there are enough safeguards for the husband to move the Court under S.489 Cr. P. C, for appropriate remedies. I feel that the learned Magistrate has stated the question of law correctly in making this observation.