1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4269 OF 2008 Kisan Vithalrao Kashid, R/o Adas, Tq-Kaij, Dist-Beed PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Prayagbai Kishan Kashid R/o Adas, At Present-Shelgaon, Ganji Post Salegaon, Tq-Kaij, Dist-Beed 2. Kashinath Vithalrao Kashid R/o As above 3. Karbhari Vithalrao Kashid R/o Adas, Tq-Kaij, Dist-Beed RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.M.K.Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner None for the respondents, though served ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 9 th June 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed below Exhibit-34 in Special Civil Suit No.2/2006 dated 21.06.2008. 2 2. Factual matrix, which gave rise to file the present writ petition, can be summarised as under - The respondent No.1 herein has filed a civil suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.02/2006 for maintenance and for creating charge of the amount of maintenance on the landed property of the petitioner herein. It appears that earlier divorce petition,bearing Hindu Marriage Petition No.18/1979, was filed by the parties and the decree of divorce came to be passed. Thereafter the respondent No.1 has filed an application u/s 125 of Criminal Procedure Code against the present petitioner, which was rejected by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, against which Criminal Revision was preferred by respondent No.1 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai and that Criminal Revision bearing No.40/1999 was allowed. The judgment passed in the said criminal revision is challenged by filing Criminal Revision No. 345/2000, in this Court, which is still pending. In this background, the petitioner moved an application u/s 10 read with sec. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambajogai for stay to the Special Civil Suit No.02/2006 3 during the pendency of the criminal revision No.345/2000, which is rejected by order dated 21.06.2008 and the said order is challenged by the petitioner by way of filing present writ petition. 3. After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and on perusal of the order under challenge, it is clear that the petitioner cannot sought stay to the special civil suit pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division on the ground that criminal revision is pending before High Court. Criminal Revision is a proceeding under the criminal law while the special civil suit is a proceedings under the civil law. The respondent No.1, who is the divorcee of the present petitioner, has a right to claim maintenance under criminal law as well as civil law. The remedy provided u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is a remedy by way of speedy trial, which is totally different than the remedy available for maintenance under the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. A person who is entitled to claim maintenance under the Criminal Law, may be entitled to claim maintenance under the civil law and vis-a-vis. In the premise, the nature of the 4 remedy, as available under the criminal law and under the civil law, are based on two different provisions of law. Therefore, asking for stay to the proceedings in the civil court during the pendency of the criminal revision, is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Though the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division dated 21.06.2008 is not happily worded, yet it is also not wrongly concluded. In the premise, I do not found any fault with the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division. In the result, the writ petition, which is sans merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/wp4269-08