(1.) The husband filed this petition to quash the proceedings in M C No. 13/89 OB the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate. Parvatipuram which was filed under Section 125 Cr PC for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/-per month to the wife and Rs. 500/- to each of the children towards their maintenance.
(2.) It is stated that the revision petitioner (husband) married the second respondent herein on 21-8-81 and both of them lived happily till two children (respondents 3 and 4) were born. Subsequently there were misunderstandings which resulted in the husband filing O P No. 49/ 85 in Subordinate Judge's Court, Vizia- nagaram for divorce. During the pendency of that OP the husband was directed to pay interim maintenance at Rs. 250/- per month to the wife. Subsequently, O P 49/85 was dismissed on 22-6-1987, It is stated that an appeal is filed to the High Court challenging the decision in O P No. 49/85 and it is pending. The lear ned counsel for the petitioner stated that even after the dismissal of O P 49/85 tkc husband has been continuing to send Rs. 250/- per month towards mainten ance of the wife; that Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') empowers the Civil Court either at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto to make provision for maintenance; that it is open to the wife to move the Subordinate Judge's Court at Vizianagaram for payment of maintenance or enhaaceaaent of maintenance as the case may be and that tke criminal proceedings initiated by the wife under Section 125 Cr P C are not maintainable.
(3.) Section 25 of the Act empowers the Court exercising jurisdiction under the Act to make a provision for permanent alimony and maimtenance at the time of passing of the decree or at any time subsequent thereto. That lection therefore clotkes the Civil Court with the right of providing permanent alimony at the time of passing a decree for divorce. But, in this case, the petition for divorce filed by the husband has been dismissed aad the marriage is still subsisting. Till the High Court reverses the decision of the learned Sub ordinate Judge, the marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent continues to subsist. Therefore, it can not be said that the criminal Court has no jurisdiction to cntertain the petition filed under Section 125 Cr. P. C.