Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
  • SECTION 125 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
  • Court.(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
  • SECTION 125 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
  • Court.(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent-wife filed Petition No. E-307/99 in Family Court No. 2, Nagpur, seeking maintenance of Rs. 1,500 per month and an interim maintenance order. By order dated 8-12-2000 interim maintenance of Rs. 800 per month was granted. The husband (applicant) failed to pay interim maintenance and was in arrears from November 2001 to February 2002. On 29-1-2002 the wife applied for relief for non-payment and sought striking out the husband's defence. The Family Court issued interim directions on 29-2-2002 and noted no reply was filed; on 28-3-2002 the court struck off the husband's defence. The record shows the husband deposited Rs. 4,000 (arrears for five months) on 28-3-2002. The husband filed the present revision challenging the striking off of his defence.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether a Family Court has power, under proceedings arising from section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to strike out a party's defence for non-payment of interim maintenance.
  2. Whether proceedings under section 125 CrPC in a Family Court are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Chapter IX) or by the Code of Civil Procedure pursuant to the Family Courts Act, section 10.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

  • There is no provision in section 125 CrPC permitting a court to strike out the defence; section 125(3) provides only for issuing a warrant for levying the amount due or for imprisonment.
  • Consequently, there is no legal power in the Family Court to strike out the defence for non-payment of interim maintenance.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted the legal position that maintenance proceedings under section 125 CrPC fall under Chapter IX of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court analyzed section 10 of the Family Courts Act, noting:

  • Sub-section (1) makes the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to suits and proceedings before a Family Court except proceedings under Chapter IX of the CrPC.
  • Sub-section (2) provides that the provisions of the CrPC apply to proceedings under Chapter IX before a Family Court.
  • Therefore, for matters under section 125 CrPC, the Civil Procedure Code does not apply and the proceedings are governed by the Criminal Procedure Code.

Given that striking out the defence is not authorized by section 125 CrPC and considering that the arrears had been deposited (Rs. 4,000), the court was inclined to allow the revision.

Holding and Implications

REVISION ALLOWED. The revision is allowed in terms of prayer clause (2) and the rule is made absolute.

Direct effects: The Family Court's order striking off the husband's defence is set aside; the section 125 CrPC application will proceed expeditiously and the husband's defence will be taken into account.

No broader precedent or novel legal principle was articulated beyond the application of the Family Courts Act, section 10, to conclude that section 125 proceedings are governed by the CrPC.

    Vinod v. Chhaya

    1. Heard the advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent, the ugh served.

    2. This is a revision filed by the applicant who is husband of the respondent. The respondent-wife had filed a petition being Petition No. E-307/99 in the Family Court No. 2, Nagpur for grant of maintenance @ Rs. 1500/- per month. In the said application she preferred an application for grant of interim maintenance and by an order dated 8-12-2000, she was granted an interim maintenance @ Rs. 800/- per month. The husband was not paying the interim maintenance, but was in arrears from November, 2001 till February, 2002. In the circumstance, the respondent-wife preferred an application on 29-1-2002 making a grievance for non payment of interim maintenance and seeking a striking out of the defence of the non applicant.

    3. It appears that on the application, on 29-2-2002 the Court passed an order asking the other side to say. On 5-3-2002 the Court passed the further order that there was no say filed by the other side and hence the matter was directed to be put up for orders. An endorsement on the said application reveals that the applicant-husband received he copy of that application on 28-3-2002. However, on 28-3-2002 itself, the trial court allowed the said application and struck of the defence of the respondent. In fact, the record indicates that on 28-3-2002 the applicant had deposited Rs. 4,000/- which were the arrears for five months, in the Court.

    4. The contention of the applicant that there is no provision under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code to strike out the defence. If any person fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order and only thing that can be under section 125(3) is to issue warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines or for imprisonment as provided for in the said sub clause (3) of section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code.

    5. The submission made on behalf of the applicant that there is no legal provision under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code and hence there is no power in the Family Court to strike out the defence for non payment of interim maintenance is agreed to be a legal position. The Family Court is governed by the Family Courts Act. The procedure is to be followed by the Court under the said Act is as laid down under section 10, which is as follows:

    10. Procedure generally. — (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and of any other law for the time being in force shall apply to the suits and proceedings (other than the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) before a Family Court and for the purposes of the said provisions of the Code, a Family Court shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have all the powers of such court.

    (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the rules made thereunder, shall apply to the proceedings under Chapter IX of that Code before a Family Court.

    (3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall prevent a Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by one Party and denied by the other.

    6. It may be seen from the above that insofar as an application for maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, the same falls under Chapter IX of the Criminal Procedure Code and hence Civil Procedure Code has no application and the proceedings would be governed by the Court by Criminal Procedure.

    7. In this view of the matter and also considering the circumstance, that the amount due had been paid. I am inclined to allow the revision. The revision is allowed in terms of prayer clause (2).

    8. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

    9. The application under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code will proceed expeditiously and in view of the rule being made absolute, the defence of the applicant-husband will be taken into account.

    Order accordingly.
    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Vinod v. Chhaya
    (Aug 29, 2002)