RAMESHWAR MADHAVRAO BACHKAR Vs. PRATIBHA R. BACHKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the Writ Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) In this Writ Petitioner, the petitioner/husband has challenged the order dated 18th March, 2014 and 19th January, 2015. The respondent/wife has filed the petition bearing no. A-250 of 2013 against the petitioner/husband under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. She has also filed the petition bearing No. E- 122/2013 under section 125 of Cr. P.C. for grant of maintenance. By the order dated 18th March, 2014 the learned Judge of the Family Court, Nashik directed both the parties that common evidence is to be recorded in Petition No. A-250 of 2013 and the matters can be disposed of by the common judgment. Thereafter, common evidence was produced by the respondent/wife at Exhibit 20. At the request of petitioner/husband, the matter was adjourned and it was fixed on 27th November, 2014. However, the advocate of the petitioner/husband refused to take cross-examination.

(3.) The learned counsel Mr. Tajane submitted that the Family Court has no power to pass the order of common recording of evidence in the criminal matter and civil matter which are filed in the Family Court. He submitted that for criminal matters filed under section 125 of Cr. P.C., a procedure of summons cases under Criminal Procedure Code is required to be followed and the civil procedure is not applicable to those matters, therefore, under section 10 of the Family Court Act, the Court has no power to merge the proceedings. He further submitted that under section 10(3) of the Family Court Act, in the matter of settlement of the parties, the Court can adopt its own procedure, however, the civil and criminal matters cannot be merged, as he loses his right of Appeal if section 125 matter is clubbed and decided.