Dhani Ram vs Santoshi Bai and another

Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.—By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 5-7-2011 passed by the Judge, Family Court (Link Court), Sakti in Case No. 17/2010, whereby the Judge, Family Court has passed the order of interim maintenance to the respondents herein u/s 125 of the Cr.PC against the petitioner herein, i.e., father-in-law of respondent No. I and grand-father of respondent No. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and copies of other documents.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents herein have not filed any petition u/s 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, but they have specifically filed an application u/s 125 of the Cr.PC, therefore, they are not entitled for maintenance against the petitioner herein u/s 125 of the Cr.PC.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents opposes the petition and submits that the respondents are entitled for maintenance in terms of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Therefore, only on the ground of misquoting of sections or provisions, right of the respondents cannot be denied.

Admittedly, the respondents herein have filed application u/s 125 of the Cr.PC by invoking the procedure provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and not filed any petition before such Family Court, though having jurisdiction in terms of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. This is not the question of misquoting or wrong quoting of the provisions, but this is a case of choosing wrong forum. The Judge of the Family Court is having parallel jurisdiction to deal with the cases u/s 125 of the Cr.PC on criminal side, and the cases of Hindu Maintenance Act and that of other provisions of the Act on civil side. The respondents are at liberty to take appropriate steps under the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, but they are not entitled to claim maintenance u/s 125 of the Cr.PC. Consequently, the petition deserves to be allowed it is hereby allowed. The order dated 5-7-2011 passed by the Judge, Family Court (Link Court), Sakti in Case No. 17/2010 is hereby quashed. However, the respondents are at liberty to approach appropriate forum available under the law. No order as to costs.