Vijaykumar Gundappa Shetkar v Sau.Bhagywati Vijaykumar Shetkar & Ors.
(Criminal Application No. 988 of 2000) (HC Bombay)
12.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. None appears for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 though served. In my considered view, in stead of going in to detail facts of the case, it would be suffice to say that the question which is raised in this application, is answered by this Court in the case of Ravindra Haribhau Karmarkar V. Shaila Ravindra Karmarkar and same question is no more res-integra. The case in hand is fully covered by the principles laid down by this Court in the above mentioned case. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur should have stayed the proceedings under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code when he was informed about the fact that already the Civil proceeding is pending at Civil Court, Bidar. In a petition filed by the applicant for dissolution of marriage, the respondent wife, who was applicant before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur praying for maintenance, had already filed Misc. Criminal Application No.2/1993 before the Civil Court, Bidar for interim maintenance and on her application, Civil Court Bidar had ordered the interim maintenance to the respondent wife at the rate of Rs.450/- p.m. In view of the factual position and law laid down by this Court in the judgment cited above, I have no hesitation to hold that since the interim maintenance was already granted by the Civil Court, Bidar to the respondent wife, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Latur should not have proceeded further to adjudicate the application of the respondent wife for maintenance. Therefore, the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur in Criminal Misc. Application No. 156/1992 on 30th September, 1994, allowing the application of the respondent wife for maintenance, was contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned case. The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur on 30th September, 1994 in Misc. Application No. 156/1992 was contrary to the law laid down by this Court, therefore, the revision which was filed by the present applicant before the Sessions Judge, Latur should have been entertained, however, the revision came to be dismissed. In my considered view, the applicant has made out the case.