NARENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 08.07.2015 in Maintenance Case No. 160 of 2008, by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to his wife and Rs. 3,000/- per month to each of his two children.

(2.) Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three fold contentions: (i) without arraying the minor son and the daughter of the petitioner as parties in Maintenance Case No. 160 of 2008 grant of maintenance for them is bad in law, (ii) once maintenance under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is granted application under section 125 Cr.P.C is ousted, and (iii) the facts brought on record such as assault on the petitioner, filing of false criminal case against him and desertion by his wife are sufficient grounds to refuse an order under section 125 Cr.P.C.

(3.) In the first place, it needs to be indicated that the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C and under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are two different proceedings in law, application of one is not barred when an order is granted under the other Act [refer: "Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs. Mrs Veena Kaushal and Others, 1978 4 SCC 70].