1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4202 OF 2009 ... Kapildeo s/o Uttamrao Sathe, age 33 yrs, Occ. Service, R/o Eknath Nagar, Beed Dist Beed. ...PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Sow. Amita w/o Kapildeo Sathe, age 25 yrs, occ. Business, r/o c/o D.W. Jadhav, House of Suryabhan Jadhav, Ambikanagar, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. 2- Kshipra d/o Kapildeo Sathe, age 6 yrs, (minor), U/g of respondent No.1 sou. Amita w/o Kapildeo Sathe, r/o as above. ..RESPONDENTS. Shri. Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. M.C. Mayure Adv. H/f Adv. S.G. Chapalgaonkar for respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J : DATE : 15th JULY, 2009 PER COURT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2- By way of present petition, though the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.06.2009 below Exh. 19 in Misc. C.A. No.105/2009 the petitioner has restricted his claim for adjustment of maintenance amount granted to the respondents vide proceedings under section 125 of Criminal 2 Procedure Code. 3- The petitioner and the respondent No.1 are husband and wife. The respondent No.2 is the daughter of petitioner and respondent No.1. 4- In the criminal proceedings u/s 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.500/- to the respondents No.1 and 2 respectively. The respondents had also filed a suit for maintenance. Vide the judgment and order dated 04.02.2009, in Spl.C.S.No. 14/2005 said suit is decreed thereby granting maintenance to the respondents @ Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- p.m respectively to the respondents No.1 and 2. 5- Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal has been preferred by the present petitioner. In the said appeal, an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal alongwith the application for stay to the impugned order has been filed. Said application for stay has been allowed on certain conditions. 6- Since the petitioner has restricted his claim only for adjustment of the amount granted in the proceedings under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, I do not find it necessary to go into the merits of the matter. The Apex Court in the case of Sudeep Chaudhary V/s Radha Chaudhary reported in 1997 (1) SCC 286 has held that “ the amount awarded under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance was adjustable against the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceedings and was not to be given over and above the same.” 7- In that view of the matter, I find that the petition can be disposed 3 off with the directions that the petitioner would be entitled to adjust the amount directed to be paid in criminal proceedings, against the amount directed to be paid in the judgment and decree dated 04/02/2009 in Spl C.S. No.14/2005 i.e petitioner would be required to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- to the respondent No.2, including the amount as directed to be paid in the criminal proceedings. It is directed that the learned Appellate Court would work out the arrears of amount based on the aforesaid directions and that said arrears would be cleared by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date on which the calculation are ordered by the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court is directed to do the said calculations as directed above, within a period of four weeks from today. 8- It is made clear that the Court has not considered nothing merits of the matter and the parties would be at liberty to raise grounds available to them before the learned Appellate Court. Though the petition is allowed, so as to meet the costs of the respondent wife , the petitioner is directed to deposit the costs which are quantified at Rs.5,000/- within a period of four weeks from today in the Appellate Court. On deposit of the said costs, the respondent No.1 and 2 would be at liberty to withdraw the same. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ..... aaa/wp4202.09