ORDER
1. In this petition under S. 482 of the Criminal P.C., hereinafter referred to as the 'Code', the petitioner has requested to quash the proceedings in C.Msc. No. 836/87 on the file of the Additional Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, and also to quash the order dt. 6-8-1988 made by the Additional Judge, Family Court (the Court for short) in C. Misc. No. 836 of 1987. The Office has raised objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition under S. 482 of the Code.
2. The record is perused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of maintainability of the petition.
4. The relevant facts to be noticed and referred to are these :
Smt. Lakshmamma, the respondent herein, has filed a petition under S. 125 of the Code with a prayer to direct the petitioner herein to pay a monthly maintenance allowance. In the said proceedings, the respondent filed an application under S. 125 of the Code read with S. 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (the Act for short) or interim maintenance. The petitioner resisted the claim for interim maintenance. The learned Additional Judge of the Court by the order dt. 6-8-1988 allowed the Interlocutory Application filed by the respondent - numbered as I.A.II, and directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month from the date of the application till the disposal of the main petition.
5. It is this order that is sought to be quashed, in addition to the prayer to quash the proceedings instituted by the respondent in C. Misc. No. 836/87, in this petition.
6. The short question for consideration is : Whether the petitioner can invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 of the Code to quash the order and the proceedings
7. It is by now well settled that the proceedings under S. 125 of the Code are in the nature of civil proceedings. It is equally well-settled, whatever the nature of the proceedings may be, the proceedings are wholly governed by the Code. The proceedings are essentially judicial proceedings of a Criminal Court and are governed by the Code as such.
8. No appeal lies against an order made under S. 125 of the Code, since there is no conviction for an offence. The provisions of the Code do not authorise a Magistrate to review the final order passed by him in a proceedings under S. 125. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that if S. 362 of the Code does not apply in terms, the salutary principle laid down in the said section does apply, since it cannot be doubted that the proceedings under S. 125 of the Code are judicial proceedings and that the final order or the reasons given for the final order in such proceedings is in effect a judgment. If the Magistrate who passed the order finds that he has committed any error, it would be his duty to submit the proceedings to the Sessions Judge or the High Court for rectification. But the revision lies to the High Court and to the Sessions Judge. The Government of Karnataka, in exercise of the powers conferred on it under S. 3 of the Act and in consultation with the High Court, has established a Family Court for the City of Bangalore. The local limits of the family Court in Bangalore has been specified as Bangalore Metropolitan Area, as defined in the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976.
9. S. 7 of the Act lays down that subject to the other provisions of the Act, a Family Court shall have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any District Court or any subordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation and be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a District Court or, as the case may be, such subordinate Civil Court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends. It is unnecessary to refer, for the present purpose, the Explanation to S. 7(1) of the Act.
10. S. 7(2) of the Act, which is material for the present purpose, reads :
'(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall also have and exercise -
(a) the Jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the First Class under Chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 (2 of 1974); and
(b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by any other enactment.'
11. A reading of the provision herein-above extracted would show that subject to the other provisions of the Act, a Family Court is invested with the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the First Class under Chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Code.
12. Under S. 8(b) of the Act, where a Family Court has been established for any area, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate in relation to such area ceases to exist. He cannot exercise any jurisdiction or powers under Chapter IX of the Code in relation to any area for which a Family Court has been established. Thus, S. 8 excludes the jurisdiction of the Courts mentioned therein on the establishment of Family Court for any specified area. The section also provides for the transfer of proceedings to the Family Court within whose jurisdiction they fall and which, immediately before the establishment of the Family Court, were pending before any other Court.
13. Under S. 19(1) of the Act, save as provided in sub-section (2) of the said section and notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil P.C. or in the Code or any other law, an appeal lies from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law. The only provision which bars the appeal is sub-section (2) which lays dawn that no appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties.
14. Sub-section (4) of S. 19 of the Act provides that except as stated in sub-section (1), no appeal or revision shall lie to any Court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court.
15. Having regard to the nature of the order sought to be quashed, the petitioner cannot prefer an appeal against the same as provided in S. 19(1) of the Act. In view of the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of S. 19, he cannot prefer any revision against the order.
16. In T. V. Satyanarayana v. Subba Aruna Meenakshi, ILR (1988) Kant 1074, it was held that an interlocutory order made under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act amounts to a 'judgment', but the very fact that it is an interlocutory order makes it non-appealable in view of the words of S. 19(1) of the Act and that in view of sub-section (4) of S. 19 of the Act, the appeal cannot even be permitted to be converted into a revision petition, as in view of sub-section (4) of S. 19 of the Act, no appeal or revision except to the extent provided under sub-section (1) of S. 19 of the Act lies to the High Court.
17. It is thus clear that the petitioner cannot challenge the order dt. 6-8-1988 made by the Additional Judge, Family Court, Bangalore either by preferring an appeal under S. 19(1) of the Act, or by filing a Revision Petition under S. 115 of the Civil P.C.
18. In view of the mandate in S. 19(4) of the Act, the petitioner cannot prefer any revision against the order under the Code.
19. It is provided by S. 10(2) of the Act that subject to the other provisions of the Act and the Rules, the provisions of the Code or the Rules made thereunder shall apply to the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code before a Family Court. It may not be difficult to hold that in proceedings instituted under S. 125 of the Code, the Family Court has to follow the procedure prescribed in respect of maintenance proceedings in the Code and the Rules made thereunder, of course, subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is also relevant to notice in this context S. 18(2) of the Act. S. 18(2) provides that an order passed by a Family Court under Chapter IX of the Code shall be executed in the manner prescribed for the execution of such order by the Code.
20. The fact to be noticed is that the Family Court while dealing with a petition under S. 125 of the Code, has subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, to follow the procedure prescribed in the Code and the Rules made thereunder and that while executing an order passed by it under Chapter IX of the Code, it has to follow the procedure prescribed for the execution of such order in the Code.
21. Having regard to the fact that the proceedings under S. 125 of the Code are wholly governed by the Code, the fact that the petitioner is not provided with a remedy to assail the legality, propriety, correctness of the (interlocutory) order under the provisions of the Act and taking into consideration the provisions contained in Sections 10(2) and 18(2) and other provisions relating to appeal and revision, of the Act, the fact that a litigant can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash the proceedings in an appropriate case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, it is my considered view that the petitioner can invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 482 of the Code. There appears to be no other provision of law by which the petitioner can seek the relief sought for in the petition.
22. For all the aforesaid reasons, I hold the petition is maintainable. I, therefore, overrule the Office objection and direct that the petition shall be registered as Criminal Petition and be placed before the Court for Admission.
23. Order accordingly.