( IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1322 OF 2025 Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order, dated 31.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.738 of 2024 in F.C.O.P. No.984 of 2018 on the file of Principal Family Court-Cum-IV Additional District Court at Vijayawada, Krishna District. Between: Nakka Mallikarjuna Vara Prasad, S/o.N.Nagaraju, Hindu, aged 35 years. Private Employee, R/o.Flat No.137, Vinayaka Hills, Tirumala Nagar Colony, Hyderabad - 500 079, Permanent resident of House No. 1-98/3/5/32, Plot No.56/5-7, Jubilee Enclave, Madhapur, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondent AND Nakka Jayasri @ Bodi Jayasri, W/o.Nakka Mallikarjuna Vara Prasad, D/o.Bodi Venkata Satya Naga Mallikarjuna Raju, aged 30 years, R/o.D.No.44-14/3-17/2a, Tungam Ramulu Street, Gunadala, Vijayawada. ...Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner I.A NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition filed under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in F.C.O.P.No.984 of 2018 on the file of Principal Family Court-Cum-IV Additional District Court at Vijayawada, pending disposal of the aforesaid Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner :Sri Venkata Durga Rao Anantha Counsel for the Respondent The Court made the following: * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI (€^) NO:(59^2025 + CIVIL REVISION PETITION %0^{ .05.2025 # Nakka Mallikarjuna Vara Prasad. Petitioner And: $ Nakka Jayasri ....Respondent ICounsel for the petitioner : Sri A.Venkata Durga Rao Counsel for the respondent <Gist: A >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. 2023 see Online All 4466 2. 2020 see Online All 2190 3. OP (Orl.) No.301 of 2016 decided on 06.03.2020 by High Oourt of Kerala at Ernakulam 4. 2025 see Online SO 791 5. AIR 1956 Se 415 2 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI * * * * ^ I3.2t CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: (g^;/2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED; 0^ .05.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI 1. Whether Reporters of Local may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No newspapers 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals w^es/No 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? l^^es/No 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI gyiL REVISIONPETITIQN NO:r^^9n9:; ORDER: This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the husband of the respondent feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by order dated 31.01.2025 by the learned Judge, Principal Family Court - cum - IV Additional District Court Vijaya\A/ada in Crl.M.P.No.738 of 2024 in FCOP.No.984 of 2018. 2. The office objection about the maintainability of the petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order passed in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C is overruled. The challenge to the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C or an order passed in those proceedings would be amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Consitution India. The petitioner may also have an alternative remedy but an alternative of remedy is not a bar to the maintainability of petition under Article 227 Constitution of India though that may be a factor against the the petition. Let the petition be numbered. of entertainability of 3. The said FCOP was filed by the respondent-wife for maintenance Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner-husband filed the petitioner also filed I.A.No.738 of 2024 under Order seeking to reject the petition for maintenance. Fie inter-alia submitted Court lacked territorial jurisdiction and the petition submitted that the petition did not disclose the cause of action. Any residence under counter. During pendency, 7 Rule 11 CPC that the was not maintainable. Fie proof was not filed and there was suppression of material facts. The petition filed various documents in respect of his contention that there was territorial jurisdiction with the learned Trial Court, so as to reject the petition of the wife, under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. er no 4. The wife filed objection/counter and inter-alia submitted that the husband did not take any such objection with respect to the address of the wife for more than six years. It was further submitted that the petition of the husband to receive additional counter was dismissed. However the revision filed by him before the High Court was allowed and additional counter filed. Even in the additional counter, he did not take plea of alleged lack territorial jurisdiction in the court concerned and when the was of case was coming for cross-examination of the husband, Crl.M.P.No.738 of 2024 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed just to cause the harassment of the wife the proceedings, unnecessarily. and to drag 5. Learned Trial Court framed the following point for consideration: “Whether the petitioner/respondent is entitled to seek for rejection/dismissal of petition by invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC?” 6. Learned Court vide order dated 31.01.2025 rejected Crl.M.P.No.738 of 2024. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition filed by the wife was not maintainable. It did not disclose the cause of action. The Court also lacked territorial jurisdiction. So, FCOP.No.984 of 2018 was barred. 5 Consequently, the application under Order allowed. He placed reliance in the case of Shabana Bano I have considered the aforesaid submission 7 Rule 11 CPC should have been v^. State of U.P\ 8. and perused the material on record. 9. Learned Trial Court held that Section 125 Cr.P.C, the per the averments of the petition under marriage was solemnized on 23.11.2017 at Gudivada as per Hindu rites and customs and the wife joined the husband at Hyderabad to lead marital life. Learned Court recorded the finding that the wife had her address at Gunadala, Vijayawada. Aadhar card in proof of her residence as shown In support thereof the copy of the was also filed. She also filed photostat Vijayawada against copy of FIR in Cr.No.395 of 2018 of Machavaram P.S. the husband and his family members. It also referred to Section 126(1) Cr.P.C that the proceedings under Section 125 may be taken against any person in any district (a) where he is, or (b) where he or his wife resides or (c) where he lastly resided with his wife, mother of the illegitimate child. The learned Court further pleadings as also the documents annexed, the petition disclosed action and the residence at the time of filing of the petition within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Court. or as the case may be, with the recorded that from the cause of was prima facie 10. Learned Trial Court further observed that the suit was of the year 2018 and also identified as an oid matter. The petition was filed by the husband to drag the proceedings for maintenance. 2023 see Online All 4466 6 This Court is of the confirmed view that the procedure under CPC, in 11. particular Order VII Rule 11 CPC would not be applicable to the proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Any provision of law applying Order VII Rule 11 CPC to the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C or any independent provision alike Order VII Rule 11 CPC in Cr.P.C for maintenance proceedings has not been placed before the Court. In Durgawati Devi v. Muktinath TiwarF, the Allahabad High Court held 12. as under: “10. Even as per the judgment in Mohammad Nadeem v. State of U.P. ((2015) 2 All Cri R 2207) provisions of CPC have not been made applicable to proceedings under Chapter IX and there is nothing therein which could persuade this Court to hold otherwise. The ratio of the said judgment on the issue as to whether an appeal would lie under Section 19 of the Act, 1984 or remedy under the provisions of any other law for the time being in force like Cr.P.C. CPC and Hindu Marriage Act, is available, does not have any bearing so far as the question involved in this application is concerned. The question here is as to whether, for transfer of proceedings under Sections 125 and 127, CPC will apply or Cr.P.C. will apply. From a bare perusal of subsection 92) of Section 10, as already discussed, and for the reasons already given it is Cr.P.C. which applies and it contains a provision for transfer of such proceedings under Section 407 thereof. In the aforesaid case of Nadeem as there was a specific remedy against the orders of the Family Court by way of an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act, 1984, therefore, the provisions of the CPC and the Cr.P.C. were held to be inapplicable but the said reasoning does not apply in this case in view of the unambiguous provision of the Act, 1984 itself in this regard as noted hereinabove, which permits the applicability of Cr.P.C. to proceedings under Chapter IX, Cr.P.C. This is also the view taken by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the Case of Durga Prasad v. Family Judge, Bareily, (1998) 33 ALR 536 : 1998 AIHC 3902 (All). In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is not necessary to 11. ^ 2020 see Online All 2190 7 go into the question as to whether remedy will lie under Article Constitution of India 227 of the as suggested by some of the learned counsels, as this would be the case only if there was no remedy available in the Cr.P.C.” 13. In Sebastian v. Alphonsa^, the Kerala High Court held as under; “17, Legal position that emerges from the discussion of the above ttLQ.ugh proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is essentially a civil proceeding or a quasi civil proceedings, the Code of Civil Procedure has application. The procedure under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary procedure governed by Chapter IX Cr.P.C., which has been consistently held to be a self contained provision. It was also held that Chapter XV of Cr P .r applicable to the facts of the case. case laws is no was not 18. In the emerging situation, when an application filed by the respondent in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., what should be the procedure adopted by the Court? It seems that the answer lies in the Division Bench decision in Ramakrishnan v. Kali {1987 (2) KLT 938}. In that case, though it was held that provisions under CPC will not apply and though the Chapter IX Is a self contained code, it was held that the court was bound to evolve a procedure of its in consonance of the provisions and spirit of the Cr.P.C ” In Shabana Bano (supra) upon which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner the application of the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C was rejected. Challenging the same, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C was filed. The legal issues for consideration framed by the High Court of Allahabad in Shabana Bano (supra) were as under; own 14. 22.The legal issues born out from the records of the present application, which has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the parties are as under: (a) Whether in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the provision of Section 11 of the Cr.P.C. i.e. principle of res judicata will apply or not?; (b) Whether the principle of res judicata will apply in the case of the applicant under section 125 Cr.P.C,?; and ' 6P(Cri.) No.301 of 2016 dated 06.03.2020 by High Court of Kerala 8 (c) Whether fresh application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant is maintainable or not, after her two applications under Section 125 and 126 Cr.P.C. have been rejected for want of prosecution.” The Allahabad High Court answered on issue no. (a) that in the proceedings initiated by the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure i.e., principle of res judicata will apply. On issue nos. (b) & (c) it was held that the principle of res judicata will only be applicable in second case/application in which the matter directly and substantially in issue had been directly and substantially in issue in the former application under Sections 125 and 126 (2) Cr.P.C between the same parties which was heard and decided. In Shabana Bano (supra) earlier two cases filed by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and 126(2) Cr.P.C. were rejected for want of prosecution. Those were not finally decided after affording opportunity of hearing. It was held that the application afresh for the same relief of cause of action was 15. maintainable and principle of res judicata was not attracted. There cannot be any dispute that the principles of res judicata would apply even to the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., but not because of Section 11 CPC. The principles of res-judicata shall be applicable and it is so to give finality to the matter decided, even in Criminal Proceedings. In S.C.Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh^, the Hon’ble Apex Court held following Pritam Singh v. The State of Punjab^ that principles oi res-judicata apply to Criminal Porceedings. " 2025 see Online sc 791 ^AIR 1956 SC 415 9 But, here the question is not with respect to the applicability of principle of judicata in view of some res- previous proceedings between the parties attaining finality. So, on the strength of Shabana Bano (supra), it cannot be said that Order VII Rule 11 CPC shall also apply to Section 125 Cr.P. C. proceedings. 16. The learned Court considered the application and rejected the same on merits, by holding that the petition disclosed the its face value, there was Section 125 Cr.P.C cause of action and also on no bar of territorial jurisdiction. The petition under was filed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court per Section 126 of Cr.P.C, which reads as under;- as “126. Procedure- 1) Proceedings under section 125 a) where he is, or may be taken against any person in any district - bjwhere he or his wife resides c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child, proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made or personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for paymen of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper. 3) The Court in dealing with applications under section 125 make such order as to costs as may be just.” or cases: , or shall have power to 17. The petitioner has not paid any amount towards maintenance to the wife as submitted by the petitioner’s counsel l on specific query made on the 10 aspect of maintenance. He has also not deposited the amount pursuant to the impugned order, though the proceedings were filed in the year 2018. There is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned 18. Court. 19. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRY //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI (For his Lordship’s kind perusal) To 1. The Judge, Principal Family Court-Cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. One CC to Sri Venkata Durga Rao Anantha, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Nine (09) L.R. Copies. 4. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 5. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association Library, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. 6. Three CD Copies BSV sree HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 ORDER CRP.No.1322 of 2025 DISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS