B. Lokhanadham @ B. Lokeshwara Rao vs State and Others

Immaneni Panduranga Rao, J.—The husband filed this petition to quash the proceedings in M.C. No. 13/89 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate. Parvatipuram which was filed u/s 125 Cr. P.C. for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month to the wife and Rs. 500/- to each of the children towards their maintenance. It is stated that the revision petitioner (husband) married the second respondent harein on 21-8-81 and both of them lived happily till two children (respondents 3 and 4) were born. Subsequently there were misunderstandings which resulted in the husband filing O.P. No. 49/85 in Subordinate Judge''s Court, Vizianagaram for divorce. During the pendency of that O.P. the husband was directed to pay interim maintenance at Rs. 250/- per month to the wife. Subsequently, OP. 49/85 was dismissed on 22-6-1987. It is stated that an appeal is filed to the High Court challenging the decision in O.P.No. 49/85 and it is pending. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that even after the dismissal of O.P. 49/85 the husband has been continuing to send Rs. 250/- per month towards maintenance of the wife; that Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') empowers the Civil Court either at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto make provision for maintenance; that it is open to the wife to move the Subordinate Judge''s Court at Vizianagaram for payment of maintenance or enhancement of maintenance as the case may be and that the criminal proceedings initiated by the wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable.

Section 25 of the Act empowers the Court exercising jurisdiction under the Act to make a provision for permanent alimony and maintenance at the time of passing of the decree or at any time subsequent thereto. That Section therefore clothes the Civil Court with the right of providing permanent alimony at the time of passing a decree for divorce. But, in this case, the petition for divorce filed by the husband has been dismissed and the marriage is still subsisting. Till the High Court reverses the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, the marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent continues to subsist. Therefore, it cannot be said that the criminal Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C.

Moreover Section 25 of the Act does not provide for any maintenance for the children. In M.C. 13/89 maintenance is sought not only for the wife but also for the two children at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for each child. That being the case, there are absolutely no grounds to quash the proceedings in M.C. No. 13/89.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner (husband) is employed at Vizianagaram and therefore initiation of proceedings in the Sub Court by the wife would be convenient for him. The convenience of the revision petitioner (husband cannot be considered as a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings which are validly initiated.

For above reasons I hold that there are absolutely, no grounds to quash the proceedings in M.C. No. 13/89 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parvatipuram. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.