MOHAMMED YASEEN BABA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.
LAWS(APH)-2019-12-37
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 17,2019

Mohammed Yaseen Baba Appellant
VERSUS
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The challenge in this Criminal Revision Case at the instance of the petitioner/appellant is to the order dtd. 7/6/2018 in Crl.M.P.No.75/2018 in Crl.A.No.253/2018 passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam refusing to stay all further proceedings in DVC No.24/2015 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of Crl.A.No.253/2018.
(2.)1st respondent is the wife and respondents 2 and 3 are the minor children of petitioner/appellant. Respondents filed FCOP No.1811/2015 under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance against the petitioner before the Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam. In I.A.No.375/2017 the said Court awarded Rs.4,000.00 as interim maintenance vide order dtd. 6/1/2018. Later, the respondents filed DVC No.24/2015 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam wherein in Crl.M.P.No.3608/2016 the said Court in its order dtd. 13/3/2018 awarded interim maintenance of Rs.5,000.00 per month to 1st respondent and Rs.2,500.00 per month each to respondents 2 and 3 from the date of filing of petition till disposal of main case.
(3.)Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/appellant filed Crl.A.No.253/2018 and in Crl.M.P.No.75/2018 he sought for stay of further proceedings in DVC No.24/2015. His grievance is that the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam without considering the fact that the respondents were already awarded Rs.4,000.00 as interim maintenance in FCOP No.1811/2015, granted interim maintenance in DVC No.24/2015 and the petitioner due to his financial problems not able to pay double maintenance. He thus prayed to stay all further proceedings in DVC No.24/2015 till disposal of the Criminal Appeal. Learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed the stay application observing that in appeal under Sec. 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'the D.V. Act') read with Sec. 374 Cr.P.C, the appellate Court is not clothed with the power to suspend the order of the lower Court and such a power to suspend the sentence is available only under Sec. 389 Cr.P.C. if the appellant was convicted with sentenced. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.