PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL BHATT Vs. MAYA PANKAJ BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The submissions of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. This Criminal Application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) takes exception to the Judgment and order passed by the learned Fifth Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge on 5th April, 2006 rejecting an Application for stay of proceedings of the Criminal Revision Applications pending in the said Court.

(2.) The 1st respondent-wife filed an application under section 125 of the said Code against the applicant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, nashik. The Application was contested by the applicant by contending that the 1st respondent was not his lawfully wedded wife. By Judgment and order dated 9th April, 2003 the application made by the 1st respondent was rejected by the learned Magistrate. However, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent has established her status as the wife of the applicant. The 1st respondent filed a Revision Application before the Sessions Court for challenging the said Judgment and order. Being aggrieved by the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate as regards the status of the 1st respondent, the applicant also preferred a separate Revision Application against the same order. An Application was filed by the applicant at Exh. 20 in the pending Revision applications praying for stay of the proceedings of both the Revision applications till the decision of the Special Civil Suit No. 120 of 2001 filed by the 1st respondent in the Civil Court. The contention] of the applicant was that the said suit was filed by the 1st respondent under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for maintenance and in the said suit, the Civil Court is bound to decide the issue of the existence of legal and valid marriage between the applicant and the 1st respondent. A submission was made that as the order of the Civil Court will be binding on the Criminal Court, proceedings of the revision Applications may be stayed till the disposal of Civil Suit. The said application was rejected by the impugned order.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant placed reliance on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ravindra haribhau Karmarkar vs. Shaila Ravindra Karmarkar and another, 1992 B. Cr. C. 167. He submitted that as the dispute regarding existence of legal and valid marriage between the applicant and the 1st respondent will be decided in the civil Suit filed by the 1st respondent, till disposal of the Civil Suit, the Revision applications should not be heard. He submitted that this is the precise view taken by the learned Single Judge of mis Court in the case of Ravindra Haribhau karmarkar (supra). He submitted that no prejudice will be caused to the 1st respondent as the prayer for maintenance made by the 1st respondent is already rejected.