1 (Cr.WP1179/10) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1179 OF 2010 Santosh Nair ..... Petitioner. V/s Jyoti Santosh Nair & Anr. ..... Respondents. Mr. A.M. Vernekar for the Petitioner. Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for the State. Mr. Vaibhav Karnik for Respondent No.1. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 21st July, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1. 2. Petitioner is challenging the order dated 20/3/2010 passed by the 3rd Family Court, Bandra where by the Family Court was pleased to reject the application filed by the Petitioner for framing preliminary issue in section 125 proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.1. 3. It is submitted that there are several judgments of the Apex Court and this Court wherein it has been held that the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C are essentially of a 2 (Cr.WP1179/10) civil nature and, therefore, provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable to these proceedings. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Judge of the Family Court erred in rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner for framing preliminary issue. 4. There cannot be any doubt regarding the ratio of the judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Since the Petitioner is challenging the alleged marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 herein, the said issue, in my view, can be conveniently decided at the final hearing of the application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C and, therefore, it is not necessary to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. All the questions, therefore shall be decided by the Family Court at the final hearing of the application. All contentions raised by both the parties are kept open. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has also filed a Petition for declaration that the Respondent No.1 is not a legally wedded wife of the Petitioner. It is submitted that the said Petition may also be heard along with the application for maintenance filed by the Respondent No.1 – wife. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 has no objection if the applicant and Petition are decided one after the other. 3 (Cr.WP1179/10) 6. Hence, the learned Judge of the Family Court is directed to decide the Petition No.B-72 of 2009 after he decides the application for maintenance filed by the Petitioner under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. With the aforesaid directions, Writ Petition is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)