Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by the husband, Atul Vasantrao Parmarthi, challenging the order of the Family Court granting maintenance to his wife, Pallavi Atul Parmarthi, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The husband argued that since the wife had already been granted interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the matrimonial proceedings, a subsequent maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC was not maintainable. The Family Court had passed the maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC on 26 October 2017 in E Petition No. 1/2016. The husband had previously filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights (H.M.P. No. 295/2015) before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhusawal, in which the wife applied for maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On 13 July 2016, the court directed the husband to pay Rs. 3,000 per month to the wife as financial assistance from the date of filing of the application till the conclusion of the matter. The matrimonial petition was finally decided on 9 March 2017, and the wife's appeal was dismissed on 24 August 2017. The Bombay High Court, after hearing the respondent's counsel and noting the absence of the applicant's counsel, examined the issue. The Court observed that the order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was specifically limited to the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings and ceased to operate upon the conclusion of H.M.P. No. 295/2015 on 9 March 2017. Since the impugned order under Section 125 CrPC was passed on 26 October 2017, there was no existing maintenance order in favour of the wife at that time. Relying on the decision in Alka w/o Vardhaman Bamb Vs. Vardhaman @ Pushkaraj @ Narendra s/o Nemichand Bamb reported in 2000(3) Mh.L.J. 512, the Court held that there is no bar under Section 125 CrPC to grant maintenance merely because an order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was previously passed. The revision application was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - No Bar - The Family Court granted maintenance to the wife under Section 125 CrPC. The husband contended that since interim maintenance was already granted under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a subsequent maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC was barred. The Court held that there is no bar under Section 125 CrPC to grant maintenance even if an order for maintenance was passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as the two provisions operate independently. The interim maintenance order under Section 24 ceased upon the conclusion of the matrimonial petition on 9-3-2017, and the impugned order under Section 125 CrPC was passed on 26-10-2017, when no maintenance order was in force. (Paras 2-4) B) Hindu Marriage Act - Interim Maintenance - Section 24 - Cessation - The order dated 13-7-2016 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act directed payment of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the wife 'till the conclusion of this matter'. The matrimonial petition (H.M.P. No. 295/2015) was finally decided on 9-3-2017. Therefore, the interim maintenance order ceased to operate on that date. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court's order granting maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is barred by the prior grant of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the matrimonial proceedings.
Final Decision
The Criminal Revision Application No. 199 of 2017 is dismissed. The order of the Family Court granting maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is upheld.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is independent of maintenance under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act
- No bar to Section 125 CrPC maintenance merely because interim maintenance was granted under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act
- Interim maintenance under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act ceases upon conclusion of the matrimonial proceedings
