P.N.Sinha, J. - (1.) This revisional application under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called Cr. P. C.) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order No. 3 dated 3.9.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 159 of 2003. The learned Judge by the impugned order rejected the application filed by the present petitioner challenging maintainability of the petition under section 125 of Cr. P. C. filed by O. P. No. 1 during pendency of MAT suit between the parties and pendency of section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called H.M. Act) petition filed by the wife in the matrimonial suit claiming maintenance pe.nde.nte lite,
(2.) Mr. Tarun Banerjee, learned senior advocate of the petitioner contended that section 24 of the H.M. Act application filed by the wife O.P. No. 1 is almost at the concluding stage in the MAT suit now pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Calcutta. Recording of evidence of the wife has been completed and evidence for this petitioner is pending. The O.P. No. 1 has already claimed maintenance in the section 24 H.M. Act petition. Subsequently, thereafter her petition under section 125 of Cr. P. C. is with mala fide intention and proceeding of the section 125 Cr. P. C. application should be kept in abeyance till disposal of the section 24 of H.M. Act application as well as MAT suit. The learned Judge without applying judicial mind by the impugned order without applying judicial mind by the impugned order dated 3.9.2003 rejected the application of petitioner and failed to exercise his jurisdiction properly. Accordingly all further proceeding of Misc. Case No. 159 of 2003 under section 125 Cr. P. C. should be stayed.
(3.) Mr. Pradip Kr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the O.P. No. 1 contended that there is no bar to file section 125 Cr. P. C. application during pendency of the matrimonial suit. Provisions of section 125 of Cr. P. C. was created for a different purpose and aim behind it was social justice so that neglected and deserted wives get some maintenance amount expeditiously from their husbands. Both the proceedings of section 125 Cr. P. C. and section 24 of H.M. Act are different. The settled principle is that the amount granted by Civil Court under section 24 of the H.M. Act and the amount of maintenance granted by Magistrate under section 125 of Cr. P. C. should be adjusted. Therefore, there is no merit in the application and it should be dismissed.;