THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.167 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the revision petitioner – U. Srinivas against the order dated 17-12-2008 in M.C. No.59 of 2007 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC – cum – Additional Family Court – cum – XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, whereby a monthly maintenance of Rs.12,500/- each was granted to respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. 2. The petitioner herein, who is respondent in the M.C. is husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2 herein, who are the petitioners in the M.C. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the M.C. before the trial Court. 4. This Court, while admitting the revision on 09-02-2009, granted interim stay vide Criminal R.C.M.P. No.213 of 2009 on condition of respondent paying 50% of the amount awarded by the trial Court including the arrears within four months and that he shall continue to deposit the same at the same rate until further orders. Thereafter, the respondent having deposited Rs.10,00,000/- in the Family Court, Chennai on 09-01-2010 in compliance of the orders passed by the said Court, filed Criminal R.C.M.P. No.138 of 2010 seeking modification and for setting aside the order passed by this Court in Criminal R.C.M.P. No.213 of 2009 dated 09-02-2009, and this Court allowed the said petition ordering that he need not deposit the amount as directed by this Court in the order dated 09-02-2009 in Criminal R.C.M.P. No.213 of 2009 until further orders. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed Criminal R.C.M.P. No.1849 of 2011 praying to direct the respondent to pay maintenance as ordered by the trial Court till disposal of this revision. At this stage, when Criminal R.C.M.P. No.1849 of 2011 came up for hearing, at the request of both sides, the revision itself is taken up for disposal. 5. The case of the petitioners in the M.C. before the trail Court is that respondent is a world renowned mandolin musician and the marriage of petitioner No.1 with him was solemnized on 27-05-1994 and it is an arranged one. After the marriage, they lived happily for sometime and out of their wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born on 30-05-1995 and thereafter the respondent and his parents started ill-treating the petitioners and neglected them with a view to break the marital tie. Ultimately, with an intention to neck them out of the matrimonial house, respondent send the petitioners to the house of the parents of petitioner No.1 at Hyderabad along with his father on 03-01-1996 on the ground of Sankranthi festival promising to get them Chennai after Sankranthi festival but did not do so. Petitioner No.1 waited for the respondent with a hope that he would take them back and when she tried to speak to him on phone, he avoided her phone calls. Further, he filed O.P. No.208 of 1997 for judicial separation and subsequently withdrew the same and filed O.P. No.805 of 1998 for divorce. However, petitioner No.1 filed O.P. No.568 of 1997 for restitution of conjugal rights. She is attending Family Court, Chennai since 1998 along with her father and the respondent is paying travelling expenses to her as per the orders of the Court. She has also filed a petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act in the Family Court, Hyderabad and interim maintenance was granted at Rs.3,000/- per month in that petition, however ultimately the said petition was returned to present the same in the proper Court for want of jurisdiction. Against the same, she filed C.M.A. No.1932 of 2003 before this Court and the same was also dismissed. From then, respondent stopped paying interim maintenance and completely neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners and that the respondent has not seen petitioner No.2. Respondent is a world renowned artist, earning lakhs of rupees even by way of foreign exchange and has income over immovable properties also. Petitioner No.1 has no means to maintain herself and petitioner No.2 and they are entitled to lead their life on par with the status of the respondent being his wife and son. Hence, they prayed to grant a sum of Rs.15,000/- each towards monthly maintenance. 6. Respondent filed his counter in the M.C. admitting his marriage with petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 being his son. However, he denied that after the birth of petitioner No.2, himself and his parents have ill-treated the petitioners and he has avoided them. It is averred that petitioner No.1 made his life miserable with her cruel acts and ill treated his family members and finally she went to her parents house leaving the matrimonial house and did not return. He admits that he is a musician, but denied his monthly income, having immovable properties and income on them. He avers that petitioner No.1 is not entitled to any maintenance since she has got movable and immovable properties. He states that dismissal of earlier O.P. filed by petitioner No.1 under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act in the Family Court at Hyderabad and the appeal thereon and again filing the present petition in Hyderabad after about two and half years show her mala fide intentions. 7. To prove her case, petitioner No.1 got herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 and P-2. On behalf of the respondent, he got himself examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-5. 8. The trial Court after an elaborate consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence produced by both the parties observing that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are of purely summary and quasi-civil in nature and therefore strict proof of the pleadings and facts is not essential and object of the proviso is only to prevent the destitute wife and children from vagrancy and to alleviate their distress to some extent by way of monthly maintenance and that the respondent has deserted petitioner No.1 and she has no means to maintain herself and petitioner No.2, granted a sum of Rs.12,500/- each to the petitioners towards their monthly maintenance from the date of that petition i.e. 05-10-2007 payable on or before 10th of every month along with arrears of maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, respondent filed this revision. 9. Now learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent, in compliance with the orders of this Court in Criminal R.C.M.P. No.213 of 2009 dated 09-02-2009, deposited maintenance amount into the bank account of petitioner No.1 till December, 2009 as directed, and thereafter, the respondent, having deposited Rs.10,00,000/- in the Family Court, Chennai on 09-01-2010 in compliance of the orders passed by the said Court, preferred Criminal R.C.M.P. No.138 of 2010 in this revision seeking modification and for setting aside the order passed by this Court in Criminal R.C.M.P. No.213 of 2009 dated 09-02-2009 to the effect that the petitioner need not pay and/or deposit 50% of the amount towards maintenance of the petitioners into the bank account of petitioner No.1 and this Court allowed the said petition ordering that the respondent need not deposit the amount as directed by this Court by its order dated 09-02-2009 in Criminal R.C.M.P. No.213 of 2009 until further orders. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the orders passed by the Family Court, Chennai and the respondent depositing Rs.10,00,000/- into the said Court towards permanent alimony and also in view of the fact that the appeal preferred by petitioner No.1 before the Honourable High Court of Chennai assailing the orders of the Family Court, Chennai, also likely to come up shortly for hearing, nothing remains in this revision, and therefore, the revision may be allowed setting aside the orders of the trial Court. 10. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings before the Family Court, Chennai are civil proceedings whereas the subject proceedings before the trial Court i.e. the Additional Family Court – cum - Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge – cum - XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad under Section 125 Cr.P.C are different and distinct and they are criminal in nature. Moreover, he submits that wife is permitted to file such an application seeking maintenance against her husband in a local Court where she resides. That petitioner No.1 in this case has been residing at Hyderabad and filed such maintenance application before a competent Court and the said Court, exercising its powers under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has granted maintenance to her and to her son though civil matters were pending in the Family Court, Chennai. That pending civil proceedings in Chennai do not in any way affect the rights of petitioner No.1 and her child, petitioner No.2 to claim maintenance from the respondent. He further submits that deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- by the respondent in the Family Court, Chennai is not helpful to the petitioners as they need monthly maintenance, otherwise they are likely to be rendered as destitutes. That considering the facts of the case, the trial Court has rightly granted maintenance in favour of the petitioners as stated herein above. Therefore, he contends that this revision is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. That till disposal of the appeal preferred by petitioner No.1 before the Honourable High Court of Chennai in C.M.A. No.1656 and 1657 of 2010, petitioners need to be maintained, and therefore, it is the binding duty of the respondent to maintain the petitioners. 11. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the trail Court has committed any error or illegality in granting maintenance to the petitioners? POINT: 12. The parties were married on 27-05-1994 and they resided together till 03-01-1996. Meanwhile, they were also blessed with a son on 30-03-1995. Thereafter, differences arose between them and they were staying separately i.e. the respondent - husband in Chennai and the petitioners – wife and son in Hyderabad. 13. The respondent had secured divorce from the Family Court, Chennai in F.C.O.P. No.805 of 1998 and the petitioner filed a petition in F.C.O.P. No.568 of 1997 seeking restitution of conjugal rights and it was dismissed while granting divorce with a condition that the respondent has to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards permanent alimony. The respondent had deposited the said permanent alimony into the Court on 09-01-2010. That while the divorce proceedings were pending in Family Court, Chennai, the petitioner had preferred a Maintenance Application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in M.C. No.259 of 2007 on the file of Additional Family Court – cum - Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge – cum - XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the respondent and her son were granted Rs.12,500/- each towards their monthly maintenance from 05-10-2007. 14. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners the proceedings before the Family Court, Chennai are civil proceedings and the present proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C are different and distinct and they are in the nature of criminal proceedings. Further, the wife is permitted to file such an application seeking maintenance against her husband where she resides and petitioner No.1, who is residing at Hyderabad filed such maintenance application before the trial Court and the trial Court by exercising its powers under Section 125 Cr.P.C., granted maintenance to her and to her son at Rs.12,500/- per month each, though civil matters were pending in the Family Court, Chennai as pendency of civil proceedings do not in any way affect the rights of the petitioners to claim maintenance against the respondent. Further, deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- by the respondent in the Family Court, Chennai is not helpful to the petitioners as they need monthly maintenance, or else they are likely to be rendered destitutes. 15. In view of the above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the trial Court observing that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are purely summary and quasi-civil in nature and therefore strict proof of the pleadings and facts is not essential and object of the proviso is only to prevent the destitute wife and children from vagrancy and to alleviate their distress to some extent by way of monthly maintenance and that the respondent has deserted petitioner No.1 and she has no means to maintain herself and petitioner No.2 and also taking into account the social, financial and professional standing of the respondent, granted maintenance to the petitioners at Rs.12,500/- per month each and the same does not suffer from any error or illegality, as such, it is not liable to be interfered with by this Court, and therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed. The point is accordingly answered. 16. That the parties may bring to the notice of the Madras High Court, where the appeal of the petitioners is pending, as to the facts of this case and adjudication hereof. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. __________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J Date:16-08-2011. KSM/PV