Full Judgment
(Prayer: This Crl.P. is filed under S.482 Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order of registering the petition filed under S.125 of Cr.P.C. by the respondents in Crl.Misc.No.352/2013 dated 15.06.2013 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District.)
1. This petition is directed against an application filed by the respondents, under S.125 of Cr.P.C. Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, having registered the Criminal Misc. Petition and issued notice to these petitioners, this petition was filed, under S.482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the said proceeding.
2. The respondents herein, claiming to be the wife and children of P.Ravishankar, who died on 31.12.2008, contend that the petitioners herein, are the illegitimate children of P Ravishankar, born through Smt.Prameela and are in possession and enjoyment of property belonging to P. Ravishankar, situated at No.4/1, New No.5, Ramaswamy Street, AlwarPet, Chennai - 18. According to the respondents, the said property is yielding an income of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month and that they were evicted/thrown out by use of force. The respondents filed Crl.Misc.Petition No.352/2013, under S.125 Cr.P.C., before the Add!.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC., Devanahalli, to direct payment of Rs.5,000/- each to them, i.e., in all Rs.15,000/- per month for their maintenance. Prior to filing of the said petition, the respondents having made the demand through a legal notice dated 25.09.2012, the petitioners got sent a reply dated 20.11.2012, denying the relationship and also claiming that the said property as belonging to them.
3. Sri N.Shankaranarayana Bhat, learned advocate, contended that the petition filed under S.125 of Cr.P.C., being not maintainable and learned Magistrate having no jurisdiction, has acted illegally in registering the case and issuing the notice. He submitted that there being no relationship between the parties, filing of the petition under S.125 Cr P.C., being abuse of process of law, learned Magistrate without any application of mind has mechanically registered the case and ordered for issuing of notice. He further submitted that the petitioners being the residents of Chennai, would suffer undue hardship to attend the case filed before the JMFC., Devanahalli. Learned counsel contended that there being abuse of process of law by the respondents, in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent unnecessary harassment, the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed. ƒ
4. Sri B.Visweswaraiah, learned advocate, on the other hand, submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not open to the petitioners to invoke the inherent power of this Court and that the trial of the matter being necessary, this petition may be dismissed. Alternatively, learned advocate submitted that, in case this petition is allowed, liberty may be reserved to the respondents to approach the Civil Court, to institute a suit for partition and for grant of consequential reliefs.
5. The short question for consideration is, "whether the petition filed under S.125 Cr.P.C., by the respondents is maintainable?"
6. The claim made by the respondents that they are the daughters of late P.Ravishankar has been denied by the petitioners, in their reply dated 20.11.2012 i.e., to the legal notice dated 25.09.2012 served by the respondents. The case of the respondents is that their father had developed illicit intimacy with Smt.Prameela and out of such relationship, the petitioners were born. ƒ
7. Admittedly, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid property. They contend that the said property is their absolute estate. The claim made by the respondents over the said property has been repudiated in toto.
8. A petition under S.125 of Cr.P.C., can be filed by the wife arid children, who are unable to maintain themselves. A claim can be made under S.125 Cr.P.C., by the wife against her husband and/or by the dependent children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, against their father.
9. In the present case, the respondents have filed the application before the JMFC., not against their father, but against the petitioners, who it is alleged, are the illegitimate children of late P.Ravishankar. As such, the basic ingredients of S.125 of Cr.P.C., are not existing.
10. The allegations made in the application filed before the learned Magistrate, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not make out a case for passing an order for payment of maintenance against these petitioners. The allegations made in the application filed against the petitioners, make it clear, that there is no ground for proceeding against the petitioners, to award the maintenance in exercise of powers under S.125 of Cr.P.C. The application filed against these petitioners, not falling within the scope of S.125 Cr.P.C., the contentions urged by Sri Shankaranaravana Bhat, as against the impugned action of the learned Magistrate is well founded. In the factual scenario, the application filed before the JMFC is not maintainable and there is abuse of process. Hence, to prevent abuse of process of law and also the hardship to the petitioners, the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed.
In the result, the petition is allowed and Crl.Misc.Petition No.352/2013 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn)., and JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District is quashed. However, this order would not stand in the way of the respondents approaching the Jurisdictional Civil Court and seeking the relief.