CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Kotha Satya Veera Simha vs Kotha Varalakshmi and Another

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 21 March 2005 · Citation: (2005) 2 ALT(Cri) 133 : (2005) 2 DMC 771 : (2005) 3 RCR(Criminal) 378

HON’BLE JUDGES
T. Ch. Surya Rao, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 498A
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal P. No. 678 of 2003
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 353 words

T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.—Petitioner seeks to quash the maintenance proceedings initiated by the first respondent herein in M.C. No. 33 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku.

2.

The sole ground, upon which the present application had been filed earlier, was that the first respondent-wife filed a suit O. S. No. 10 of 2002 for maintenance, which is pending trial on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku and having filed the civil suit for maintenance, she could not maintain the present application u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for maintenance.

3.

The case of the petitioner further seems to be that the wife also filed a criminal case alleging harassment u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and, therefore, it is nothing but a persecution.

4.

The pendency of the suit for maintenance under the provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, is obviously no bar for maintaining a petition u/s 125, Cr.PC.

5.

The object behind such a petition filed u/s 125, Cr.PC seems to be to prevent vagrancy and to give quick relief by allowing the application to be disposed of by adopting summons procedure. While considering the merits in the civil suit O.S. No. 10 of 2002, the Civil Court definitely can taken into consideration the maintenance order passed by the Magistrate u/s 125, Cr.PC and fix the quantum. Therefore, the first ground, being sought to be canvassed by the petitioner, needs no consideration. As regards the second ground of persecution, in view of the criminal prosecution launched by the wife against the petitioner u/s 498-A, I.P.C., it shall have to be considered by the concerned Criminal Court on its own merits. That cannot operate as a ground for quashing the proceedings at the threshold as prayed for.

6.

Therefore, there are no tenable grounds, under which the maintenance proceedings initiated by the wife against the husband in M.C. No. 33 of 2002 can be quashed. There are no merits in the instant criminal petition.

7.

Criminal petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.