Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Bhumika Bagade and her minor daughter Anika against Sachin Bagade. The applicants had filed a maintenance application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Principal Judge of the Family Court at Aurangabad. During the pendency of that application, the respondent (husband/father) filed an application at Exhibit 34 seeking access to his minor daughter. The Family Court allowed that application and granted the father access to the child on specified Saturdays. The applicants challenged this order, contending that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order in a Section 125 CrPC proceeding. The High Court framed the issue as whether the Family Court can grant access to a minor child in a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 CrPC. The applicants argued that Section 125 CrPC is a summary remedy limited to maintenance and does not empower the court to grant visitation rights. The respondent argued that the Family Court has inherent powers to pass such orders in the best interest of the child. The High Court analyzed the scope of Section 125 CrPC and held that it is a summary proceeding intended only for providing maintenance to wives, children, and parents. The court noted that the Family Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 125 CrPC, cannot travel beyond the scope of that provision and grant reliefs like access or visitation, which are not contemplated therein. The court further observed that the proper remedy for seeking access to a child is by filing a substantive application under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 or the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned order of the Family Court granting access, and clarified that the Family Court could not pass such an order in the Section 125 CrPC proceeding.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Jurisdiction of Family Court - The Family Court, while entertaining an application under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance, does not have the jurisdiction to pass an interim order granting access/visitation rights to the father over the minor child. The proceeding under Section 125 CrPC is a summary remedy confined to the question of maintenance and cannot be used to adjudicate or grant visitation rights. (Paras 2-10) B) Family Law - Child Custody and Access - Inherent Powers - The Family Court cannot invoke inherent powers to grant access to a child in a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC, as the relief of access is not contemplated under that provision. The proper remedy for seeking access is by way of a substantive application under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 or the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court, in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can pass an order granting access to the minor child for whom maintenance is sought.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision application, set aside the impugned order of the Family Court granting access to the minor child, and held that the Family Court cannot pass an order for access/visitation in a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC.
Law Points
- Section 125 CrPC is a summary remedy for maintenance only
- Family Court cannot pass orders for access/visitation in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC
- Inherent powers cannot be used to grant relief not contemplated by the statute
