G RAMANATHAN Vs. REVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the husband under S.482 of the Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings for maintenance instituted by the wife respondent u/S. 125 Cr. P.C.

(2.) The case put forth by the husband is that the petition was filed before the Magistrate's Court three years after the alleged desertion and therefore there was no emergency as alleged in order to invoke the quick remedy contemplated u/S. 125 Cr. P.C. He further stated that a divorce proceedings was already pending before the competent civil Court viz., S.P. No. 97 of 1984 and that it was open to the respondent to claim maintenance before that Court u/S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the wife contended before me that the proceedings u/S. 125 Cr. P.C. and the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act are two independent proceedings and therefore even during the pendency of a proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act it was open to the concerned person to seize the Magistrate. The scheme contemplated under Chap. IX of the Cr. P.C. is one meant to meet emergent situations which the civil Courts cannot decide immediately, and which would cause disorder in the society. That is why it is made part of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Secondly such a provision was introduced for the first time (a) when there was not a complete network of civil Courts all over the country and (b) when the law regarding maintenance was still at a nebulous stage. New there is a full-fledged law of maintenance and also a full-fledged law regarding marriage and divorce. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act contemplates maintenance pendente lite and S.25 of the Act contemplates the grant of maintenance at the time of the decree or even at any time subsequent thereto on application by the concerned person.