Ram Prasanna Dash v. Bhabani Devi : 1992 (2) HLR 607 : 1992 (2) DMC 134 : 1992 (2) CCR 1725 : (1990) 3 OCR 344 : (1990) 1 OLR 548 : 1990 LRC Online 4 (Ori)
Section 125---Effect of decree or order of civil court on a maintenance proceeding---Civil court is the competent forum to decide the status/relationship of parties whenever there is a dispute regarding the same and that forum having come to particular conclusion its decisions cannot be lightly brushed aside or reconsidered by the Criminal Court---Wife not entitled to maintenance under S. 125 of CrPC when Civil Court has granted a decree declaring the marriage as null and void---Proceeding under S. 125 of CrPC is not maintainable---Impugned order set aside---Petition allowed.
Held : Coming to the first point formulated above, in my view, the principle is well-accepted that it is the bounden duty of a Criminal Court to give due weight and importance to a decree/order of the competent Civil Courts declaring the status/relationship of the parties. The Criminal Court is not entitled to go into the question of correctness of the decree/order of the Civil Court. It is also not open to the Criminal Court to take the view that he is not bound by the decree/order of the Civil Court and will consider the question independently to come to his own conclusion. This view is founded on the principle that the Civil Court is the competent forum to decide the status/relationship of the parties whenever there is a dispute regarding the same and that forum having come to a particular conclusion its decision cannot be lightly brushed aside or reconsidered by the Criminal Court. The point has engaged the attention of different High Courts including this Court. I may notice here some of the decisions cited at the Bar, 1989 (II) Divorce and Maintenance Cases, 12 (Orissa), 1988 (II) Crimes 599 (Rajasthan), 1981 Crl.L.J. 151 (Punjab and Haryana), AIR 1947 Madras 425 and AIR 1944 Calcutta 17.
In view of the Civil Court decree expressly declaring the opposite party to be not the wife of the petitioner and injuncting her from laying any claim on the basis of the said relationship, the learned Magistrate ought to have considered the question of maintinability of the proceeding before proceeding further in the case and should not have postponed for consideration of the matter.