VAVADA KOTA SURYANARAYANA Vs. VAVADA PARVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The interim maintenance granted by the Court below under sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending 0.P. 15/81 on the file of Sub Court. Narsapur filed by the husband for divorce ischallenged in this revision.

(2.) The Principal question argued by the learned counsel Sri Ramachandra Murthy is that sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act) posits that the wife has no independent income and in this case the Magistrate passed an order under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. as per Ex. B-1 awarding a maintenance of Rs 150/-per month and hence the civil Court, when the O. P. is pending cannot pass another order and in any view the awarding of maintenance is excessive First of all in order to see whether the court has jurisdiction to pass the order we must look to sec. 24 of the Act.

(3.) However it is open to the petitioner to apply to the Magistrate and satisfy him that the order passed by him may be rescinded in view of the order passed by the Civil Court, in the present case the proceedings disclose that the defendant did not pay the amount as per the order of the Magistrate If the orders of both the criminal court and the civil court are executed simultaneously and it is found to be onerous it is always open to the petitioner to move the criminal court to rescind the order possed by it or bring to the notice of the civil court to vary the order to avoid hardship under the circumstances of the case. However, I do not see any error of jurisdiction in the civil court passing order under sec. 24 of the Act and in particular it is satisfied that the order passed by the Magistrate is not being obeyed or implemented by the husband. I see no error of jurisdiction and the C.R.P. fails and the same is dismissed with costs.