- (1.) THE instant revision has been filed against the order dated 22.7.2000 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur, passed in Criminal Case No. 25/1992 fixing the maintenance under the provisions of Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Cr.P.C.")
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this revision are that the revisionist and respondent No.1 got married on 15.2.1982. Respondents No.2 and 3 were born out of their wed-lock. For certain reasons, relationship between the husband and wife became strained and criminal case under sec. 498-A, IPC was filed by the wife against the revisionist. Another case under Sec. 494, IPC is pending before the criminal court on the allegation that the revisionist, though having legally wedded wife, respondent No.1, alive, got married with one Ms. Suman and has children from her. On the same charges, revisionist, who is a Medical Jurist in Medical College, Jodhpur, had been put under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated; however, because of intervention of this Court, the suspension order was revoked and he stood reinstated but the proceedings are still pending. Revisionist is living separately and respondents are staying in the house of revisionist's father. Respondents filed an application on 20.4.1992 under Sec. 125, Cr. PC for maintenance, alleging that revisionist had neglected them and refused to maintain. THE learned Family Court passed interim order directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 350/-per month to respondent No.1, the wife, and Rs. 200/-per month to respondents No.2 and 3 the children. THE same has been paid by the revisionist and after trying the case, the Court fixed the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 500/-per month to each of the respondents and also directed him to pay the said amount from the date of filing the application. Thus, the arrear of maintenance is also to be paid. Hence this revision. Mr. R.R. Chacha, learned counsel for the revisionist has raised issues that (i) findings of facts recorded by the Family Court are contrary to the evidence on record and being perverse, the same are liable to be set aside and the maintenance fixed is excessive; (ii) criminal case under Sec. 494, IPC for committing the offence of bigamy is still pending before the criminal court, thus, the Family Court was not justified in taking even a prima facie view that the revisionist had committed the offence of bigamy and that was the cause of strained relationship between husband and wife; (iii) the daughter, respondent No.3, could not have been given the maintenance after attaining majority and the order passed by the Family Court to pay her maintenance upto the date of marriage is in flagrant violation of the statutory provisions; and (iv) in no case the Family Court could have issued direction for payment of the arrears giving effect to the order from the date of application. Mr. M.L. Kala, appearing on behalf of respondents opposed all the submissions made by Mr. Chacha submitting that none of the grounds taken in the revision is tenable and the revision is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through a large number of judgments referred by them and the written submissions filed on behalf of the revisionist. The object of the provisions of Sec. 125, Cr. PC. is to provide for a social justice falling within the swim of Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution of India, which have been enacted to protect the weaker section of the society like women and children. It is in the form of secular safe-guard irrespective of personal law of the parties. The object is to compel a man to perform moral obligations towards the society in respect of maintaining his wife, children and old parents so that they may not face destitution and become the liability of the society or may be forced to adopt a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence or go astray vide Begum Subanu alias Saira Banu vs. A.M. Abdul Gafoor (1). The proceedings are summary in nature and provide for a speedy remedy against starvation of a deserted wife, children or indigent parents. Thus, entire civil liabilities of a husband or father, which may arise under the Personal Law, can not be decided in these proceedings. To enforce the substantial issues of civil law, the only remedy available is in civil court, therefore, findings recorded in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are not final and parties are always at liberty to agitate their rights in civil court. Neither the Personal Law nor custom governing the parties can become a hinderance in the proceedings under Sec. 125, Cr.P.C. Availability of any other remedy under the civil law or any other statute can not be a bar to this remedy. (vide Nand Lal Misra vs. Kanhaiya Lal Misra (2), Bhagwan Dutt vs. Smt. Kamla Devi & another (3), Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal vs. Mst. Veena Kaushal (4), Bai Tahira vs. Ali Hussain Fissalli Chotia (5) and Fuzlanbi vs. K. Khader Vali & Anr. (6). Order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not finally determine the status, rights and obligations of the parties and it only provides for maintenance of indigent wives, children and parents. (Vide Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit & Anr. (7).
(3.) THEREFORE, from the aforesaid, it is evident that the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. are summary and preventive in nature. However, the said proceedings do not restrict or limit constitutional and civil rights of the parties available to them either under the constitutional provisions or under any other statute. In spite of availing the benefit under the provisions of Section 125, Cr.P.C., the parties can approach the civil court to get the issues involving their rights decided and the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is liabel to be modified/cancelled in view of civil court's order by virtue of Section 127 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is clear that even if a child availed the benefit under Section 125 Cr.P.C., he is also entitled to enforce his rights under Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short "the Act, 1956") or under Personal Law governing him, which provides for a more comprehensive relief. The case requires to be considered not only bearing in mind the aforesaid proposition of law but also considering that the powers of revisional court against such an order are very limited for the reason that in revisional jurisdiction the court satisfies itself as to the correctness, legality and propriety of any finding, sentence or order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the inferior criminal court. In Amar Chand Agrawal vs. Shanti Bose & Anr. (8), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional jurisdiction should normally be exercised in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the proceedings or there is a manifest error of point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. ;