In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-7184 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:17.3.2009 Joginder Singh .....Petitioner v. Smt. Geeta and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) has been filed against the order dated 12.1.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad whereby maintenance has been awarded to respondents No.2 and 3 @ Rs.500/- each per month. In terms of the same order, maintenance has been declined to respondent No.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the award of maintenance to respondents No.2 and 3 is not sustainable as they are not his children. It is submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his impugned order has rightly declined to grant maintenance to respondent No.1 by holding that she has failed to prove that respondent No.1 is legally married wife of the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the children (respondents No.2 and 3) are also not entitled for the grant of maintenance. Cr. Misc. No.M-7184/2009 [2] After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that sufficient evidence has been placed on record that respondents No.2 and 3 were born out of the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1. So they being the daughter and son of the petitioner were held entitled for maintenance from their father in terms of the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing is that the said finding would be used by respondents No.2 and 3 for the purpose of claiming their status as children of the petitioner with regard to inheritance of his property as well. In my view, the said apprehension is clearly unfounded as proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance are in the nature of summary proceedings and are subject to determination of rights and status of the parties in civil proceedings. The conclusions reached at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are for the grant of maintenance on the basis of evidence and material produced before it. On the strength of the same, respondents No.2 and 3 have been held entitled to the grant of maintenance. In case respondents No.2 and 3 are indeed the children born from the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1 then they would be entitled to the benefits which are permissible under the law. However, in case they are not so, the party so claiming would have right to get their status determined in accordance with law. The findings recorded by a criminal Court in proceedings for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would not be binding in civil proceedings for the purpose of determining the status of respondents No.2 and 3 as children of the petitioner. Cr. Misc. No.M-7184/2009 [3] In view of the above position, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. March 17, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*