MERUBHAI MANDANBHAI ODEDARA Vs. RANIBEN MERUBHAI ODEDARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed Misc. Civil Application No. 66 of 1999 under section 18 and 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Junagadh. The relationship of parties are as under: The respondent is the mother of the petitioner No.2 and wife of petitioner No.1.

(2.) The respondent has also filed Criminal Misc. Application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Porbandar being Misc. Criminal Application No. 84 of 1992. The petitioner filed civil suit in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) under section 14 of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. In the proceedings initiated by the respondent under sec. 125 of Cr. P.C., the maintenance has been awarded initially at the rate of Rs. 400/= p.m. but later on, on application for enhancement thereof it was enhanced to Rs. 500.00 p.m.. In the proceedings under section 18 and 21 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the respondent prays for grant of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/p.m. each from the petitioners. This application came to be allowed by the court below under the order dated 17th September, 1999. The petitioners were directed to pay each Rs. 1000.00 p.m. to the respondent as interim maintenance from the date 14th July, 1998.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the husband of the respondent is in service. He is in a position to maintain her and it is not the liability of the son to maintain her. The application filed by the respondent under section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 when the husband is alive and has his own earnings, against the son is wholly misconceived. It has next been contended that the learned trial court has found as a fact that the petitioner No.1 has his own source of income and against him the order has been passed for giving maintenance to the wife. This order simultaneously could not have been passed against the son also. So far as the petitioner No.1 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two fold contentions. Firstly, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. Secondly it is contended that while passing the order for grant of interim maintenance in the proceedings, the amount of maintenance which the respondent was getting under section 125 of Cr.P.C. was not given set off.