The Allahabad High Court observed that since a family court exercises the powers of a Judicial Magistrate while adjudicating applications under Section 125 Cr.P.C., requests for accelerated resolution under Section 483 Cr.P.C. are permissible. The Court was reviewing an application under Section 483 Cr.P.C., which urged the Additional Principal Judge to promptly adjudicate a Section 125 Cr.P.C. case.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed, “As the Family Court exercises the jurisdiction of judicial magistrate while deciding an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., an application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the Family Court for expeditious disposal of an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would be maintainable.”
Summary: Shiva Pankaj, the petitioner, married the respondent and they have a daughter together. Alleging mistreatment by the respondent, the petitioner and their daughter were evicted from their matrimonial home. Seeking maintenance, the petitioner filed a Section 125 Cr.P.C. application. In response, the respondent filed a Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. application seeking to dismiss the maintenance claim. The petitioner subsequently applied for interim maintenance, which the respondent opposed on the grounds that Section 483 Cr.P.C. does not empower the High Court to direct the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court. The petitioner argued that since the Family Court exercises jurisdiction akin to a magistrate in Section 125 Cr.P.C. matters, Section 483 Cr.P.C. permits expediting the disposal of the Section 125 Cr.P.C. application.
The Court mentioned the decision of the full bench of Madhya Pradesh HC in Rajesh Shukla v. Meena & Anr..: 2005 CRILJ 3800 and quoted, “From perusal of the scheme of the Act, it is clear that Family Court exercises two types of powers. Cases except the case under Chapter IX of the Code are decided by the Family Court as a District Court. The Family Court while dealing with the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code Family Court exercises the jurisdiction of a Judicial Magistrate First Class.”
Therefore, the Court overruled the opposing party’s initial objection and proceeded to assess the case on its merits. Highlighting the proviso attached to Section 125(1) Cr.P.C., which specifies that applications for monthly interim maintenance and proceeding expenses should ideally be resolved within sixty days of serving notice to the concerned party, the Court emphasized this requirement. In the interest of justice, the Court determined it appropriate to direct the Family Court to promptly resolve the interim maintenance application. Consequently, the Court granted the petition and instructed the Judge to expeditiously dispose of the pending interim maintenance application, as mandated by the third proviso of Section 125(1) Cr.P.C.
