Judgment:
Nishita Mhatre, J.
1. The petitioner challenges the orders passed on 1.11.2007 below Exh.5 and 17/1/2008 below Exh.11 in Criminal Revision Application No. 299 of 2007 by the Sessions Judge, Sangli.
2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: The petitioner and the respondent No. 1 are husband and wife. The respondent No. 1 has filed Special Civil Suit No. 63 of 2003 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sangli, seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month. An application for interim relief was also preferred by the respondent No. 1 in this suit. The petitioner contested the suit and opposed the grant of interim maintenance. The C.J.S.D., Sangli allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1 partly by directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1500/- per month to the respondent No. 1. This order was passed on 14.1.2006.
3. In the meantime, while the Civil Suit was pending, the respondent No. 1 filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 64 of 2005 claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 1.3.2005. The J.M.F.C., Tasgaon granted an interim maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to the respondent No. 1 by an order dated 16.1.2005. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 96 of 2005 before the Sessions Court, Sangli. The order of the Trial Court was set aside by the Sessions Court and the application for interim maintenance was dismissed.
4. The C.J.S.D., by an order dated 19.1.2006 directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1500/- per month to the respondent No. 1 from 7.1.2006 pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, in addition to the amount of maintenance awarded by the J.M.F.C., Tasgaon. The petitioner was also directed to provide a residential accommodation to the respondent No. 1. Aggrieved by this order of the C.J.S.D., the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 1592 of 2006. By an order dated 8.6.2007, the learned Single Judge of this Court (R.M. Sawant, J.) disposed of the petition. While passing this order, the learned Judge has recorded the directions passed by the C.J.S.D. in Clauses 2 and 3 as under:
2. The defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month from 7.1.2006, pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit in addition to the amount of maintenance awarded by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tasgaon.
3. The defendant is directed to provide either residential accommodation to the plaintiff befitting to his status or to arrange for the same by payment of deposit and rent within a period of one month failing which it would be open to the plaintiff to take suitable steps to enforce the terms of this order.
The learned Single Judge has then recorded the concession of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner did not desire to challenge the directions contained in Clause 2 above. The learned Single Judge has then modified Clause 3 and directed that the interim maintenance should be paid at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per month, inclusive of Rs. 300/- in lieu of any residential accommodation. This order was made subject to the final order which was to be passed in Civil Suit No. 63 of 2003.
5. The J.M.F.C., Tasgaon, by an order dated 29.6.2007 allowed the miscellaneous application filed by the respondent No. 1 and granted an amount of Rs. 1200/- per month by way of maintenance to the respondent No. 1. The petitioner then preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 299 of 2007 before the Sessions Court, Sangli and also prayed for a stay of the impugned order. The application for stay of the impugned order was rejected on 1.11.2007. The petitioner then preferred another application for the same relief. That application met with the same fate on 17.1.2008. Hence the present petition.
6. The main contention raised by Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to maintenance under both, the Cr.P.C. as well as by the order of the Civil Court. He submits that the respondent No. 1 had the option to either prosecute her suit in the Civil Court or to apply for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. He relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sanjay s/o Pundlikrao Niranjane v. Swati w/o Sanjay Niranjane, reported in : 2005(4)MhLj122 , wherein it has been held that if the wife was receiving maintenance at a higher rate under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, she would not be entitled to claim execution of the order passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. as long as she receives or continues to receive the amount under the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned advocate submits that the two remedies available to a Hindu wife are mutually exclusive and if maintenance under one Act is granted, the wife cannot claim maintenance under another provision of law. He also relies on the judgment of the another learned Single Judge of the Nagpur Bench of this Court (Wahane, J.) in the case of Ravindra Haribhau Karmarkar v. Mrs.Shaila Ravindra Karmarkar and Anr. reported in , wherein it has been held that proceedings before the Criminal Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. should be stayed if the wife has claimed maintenance in a subsequent civil suit with identical pleadings.
7. Per contra, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that the two remedies available to the wife are not mutually exclusive but are supplementary to each other. He submits that both remedies are available to the wife and she need not elect one or the other. He places reliance on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Aher Mensi Ramsi v. Aherani Bai Mini Jetha, reported in : AIR2001Guj148 , in support of his contention.
8. In my opinion, I need not enter into the controversy as to whether the two remedies are available to the respondent No. 1. This is because in Writ Petition No. 1592 of 2006, the counsel appearing for the petitioner had conceded that the petitioner did not wish to challenge the directions contained in Clause 2 of the order passed by the Civil Court. The C.J.S.D. had made it clear that the respondent was entitled to Rs. 1500/- per month from 7.1.2006 in addition to the amount of maintenance awarded by the J.M.F.C., Tasgaon. When such a concession is made, it is hardly open for the petitioner now to challenge the order passed by the J.M.F.C., Tasgaon on the ground that the respondent No. 1 ought to have elected one or the other remedy. In fact, it is a dishonest stand taken by the petitioner knowing fully well that a concession had been made on 20.3.2006 which is reflected in the order passed by this Court on 8.6.2007.
9. In my opinion, the J.M.F.C. has not committed any error in allowing the maintenance application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The Sessions Court has considered the controversy between the parties and has rejected the revision filed by the petitioner. It must be noted here that when the order was passed on 19.1.2006 by the C.J.S.D. clarifying that the order for maintenance passed by him was in addition to the maintenance awarded by the J.M.F.C., Criminal Application No. 64 of 2005 was pending before the J.M.F.C. That application was disposed of only on 29.6.2007 by the J.M.F.C. No contention has been raised by the petitioner before the J.M.F.C. in respect of maintainability of the application. Even before the Sessions Court, in revision, such a contention was not raised by the petitioner, probably because of the order dated 8.6.2007. The revision application was filed on 5.10.2007. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not proper for the petitioner to raise such a contention in this petition. An application was made before the Sessions Court for stay of the payment of maintenance based on the judgments in Sanjay Niranjane v. Swati Niranjane (supra) and Ravindra Haribhau Karmarkar v. Mrs. Shaila Ravindra Karmarkar (supra). The Sessions Court has rightly rejected that application since an earlier application for stay had already been rejected. No new grounds were urged for staying of the order and, therefore, the Sessions Court has rightly rejected the same.
10. In my opinion, when the petitioner himself has conceded that he would pay the maintenance granted by the Civil Court together with the maintenance granted by the J.M.F.C. under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner cannot now contend that the two remedies are mutually exclusive and that he should be relieved from having to pay the aforesaid amounts. The orders impugned in the present petition suffer from no error of law and, therefore, requires no interference from this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
11. Writ petition dismissed.