VIRENDRA KUMAR SETH Vs. ROOPA SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under section 482 CrPC for quashing the impugned order passed by the court below awarding maintenance allowance to Smt. Roopa Seth of Rs. 300/- per month in proceedings under section 125 CrPC.

(2.) THE Oppoiste Party Smt. Roopa Seth was married to the applicant Sri Virendra Kumar Seth on 30th May 1978. Sometime after the marriage a suit was filed by the husband under section 12/13 of the; Hindu Marriage Act for annulling his marriage and declaring it void on the ground of insanity. In the alternative a prayer was made for a decree for divorce. This petition no. 237 was filed on 6-8-79 before the Civil Judge Agra, and is pending there. It appears that on 25-9-79 an application was filed by Smt. Roopa Seth in the court of Judicial Magistrate Aligarh under Sec. 125 CrPC on the allegation that she had been treated with cruelty by her husband ; that her husband had neglected and failed to maintain her ; that he was earning a sum of Rs. 1575/- per month as an employee of the Punjab National Bank; that she was unable to maintain herself and as such she prayed for maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/-per month.

(3.) IN support of the first submission, the applicant's counsel has cited a single Judge decision of this court Smt. Premwati v. Mahesh Chandra, 1980 Allahabad Criminal Rulings 70. I have carefully perused this decision. IN this case an application was filed by Smt. Premwati in the year 1978 under section 125 CrPC claiming maintenance allowance. That- was dismissed by the trial court. The revision court upheld the order of dismissal. Thereafter a petition was filed in this court under section 482 CrPC. It appearz that on 30th May 1979, a petition for divorce was filed by the husband against the wife in the court of the Civil Judge. The High Court after scrutinizing the judgments of the subordinate courts came to the conclusion that the said orders were erroneous and should be set aside, but the learned Judge observed further that since the matrimonial suit no. 176 of 1979 had already been filed on 30th May 1979, it would serve the cause of justice if the proceedings under section 125 CrPC were altogether quashed and the parties are left to persue their remedies before the Civil Court in the matrimonial suit. Considering the facts of the above case it has to be borne in mind that the claim of the lady for maintenance allowance had been dismissed by the trial court as well as the revisional court, in other words the subordinate courts held that the lady was not entitled to any maintenance allowance. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC was of the opinion that the decision of the lower court was not correct. The learned Judge took the view that since criminal proceedings u/Sec. 125 CrPC are summary in nature and since the matter was pending before the Civil Court in the matrimonial case, therefore he thought it expedient in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings under section 125 CrPC so that these judgments may not standi in the way and the parties could claim their remedies in the pending matrimonial suit.