Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court
Ravindra Haribhau Karmarkar vs Mrs. Shaila Ravindra Karmarkar ... on 17 July, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1992 CriLJ 1845
Bench: B Wahane
JUDGMENT
1. In the instant application, the substantial question of law, in the public interest, has been raised and requires
decision from this Court. The substantial question of law raised is as under :
"Whether a Judicial Magistrate First Class trying an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is obliged under
law, to stay the proceedings, on the ground that a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction has seized the matter
in a suit, in which identical pleadings are made, and same reliefs are claimed by one and the same
applicant/plaintiff, in whose favour the Magistrate has already awarded interim maintenance ?"
2. The facts giving rise to the above question of law, in nutshell, are as under :
The applicant and the non-applicant are the legally married spouses. Their marriage was solmnised as per the
customs and rites of Hindu Religion, some times in the year 1969 at Buldana. Out of the wed-lock, they have
two issues viz. first issue is a son - Sagar who is living with the applicant while the second issue a daughter
Miss Anjali is living with the non-applicant No. 1 Mrs. Shaila Karmarkar. The couple had been to Canada and
U.S.A. where they stayed for 12 to 13 years along with their children. Both returned some time in the year
1984 to India and stayed at Buldana till 1986. During this period, their relations became strained and
ultimately on 19/5/86, the non-applicant filed an application u/S. 125 of Cr.P.C. against the applicant for
maintenance for her and the daughter. Along with the application for maintenance, the wife had also filed an
application for interim maintenance @ Rs. 500/- p.m. for both the non-applicants, on the very day. The
learned trial Court, after hearing the parties and considering the facts, awarded Rs. 250.0 p.m. to the wife and
Rs. 150/- p.m. to the daughter, as interim relief. Since the day of the order, the applicant has paid Rs. 24,000/-
to the non-applicants as maintenance allowance and that too in advance. Mr. Vidwanash, the learned counsel
for the applicant submitted that the applicant has made the payment in advance till October 1991.
3. On 15th or 16th of October 1986, the non-applicant No. 1 wife filed a regular Civil Suit No. 227/86 for
permanent alimony and also for arrears of maintenance. Along with the plaint, an application for the
attachment of the property before judgment was also filed. On 28-4-1989, the Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn.,
Buldana passed the following order on the said application :
"Perused the application and say at Exh. 64. The prayer of the applicant is that Order of attachment before
Judgment be passed or direct the defendants to furnish solvent surety of Rs. one lakh. By way of Exh. 64, the
defendants showed their willingness to furnish surety of one lakh. Hence, the defendants are directed to
furnish solvent surety of Rs. one lakh".
In compliance with the above order, on behalf of the defendants, Shri W. Y. Godbole, resident of Nagpur has
furnished the solvent surety before the Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Buldana. On 20/3/1991, the applicant has
filed his written statement in the said Civil Suit, denying the claim of the non-applicants. The case is now
posted for filing the documents.
4. The applicant filed an application to stay the proceedings of Misc. Criminal Case No. 114/86 before the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Buldana, till the decision of the Regular Civil Suit No. 227/86. The
application was opposed. After hearing the parties, the learned J.M.F.C., Buldana, rejected the application
filed by the applicant for stay of the Misc. Criminal Case No. 114/86 vide his order dated 24-1-1991.
Ravindra Haribhau Karmarkar vs Mrs. Shaila Ravindra Karmarkar ... on 17 July, 1991
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/468335/ 1
No comments:
Post a Comment