The Divorce Act may be an independent proceeding but the Magistrate cannot ignore the maintenance awarded in any other legal proceedings: High Court Of Chhattisgarh
It cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that once an order of maintenance has been passed by any Court then the same cannot be re-adjudicated upon by any other Court. The Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh before The division bench led by The Hon’ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy and The Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey in the matter of Chandrabhushan Vs. Smt. Savita Bai [FAM No. 03 of 2017].
The facts of the case were associated with an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment passed by the Family Court, Rajnandgaon dated 08.12.2016. According to the said judgment, the Court below had directed the appellant-defendant to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- per month to the respondent-plaintiff under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
The appellant contended that the application under Section 125 CrPC moved by the respondent-Plaintiff before the Family Court was ignored in the said order and as the said application of her was already rejected so the next application under another enactment for the same relief was not to be entertained. The primary ground for the instant appeal was if the subsequent application for maintenance under a different statute was to be allowed entertained and allowed by the court below.
For reference, the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another, 2021(2)SCC 324 was submitted wherein The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered all the provisions of law that provided for claiming maintenance under different statutes and stated that the remedy so prescribed ought to be exercised rather than to create multiple channels of remedy seeking maintenance.
After hearing all facts and submissions, The Hon’ble Court held that “Given the authoritative decision by the Supreme Court in the above-referred judgment, the ground raised for the appellant in assailing the impugned judgment herein would not stand and the appeal thus deserves to be and is accordingly rejected in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh (Supra). Given the authoritative decision by the Supreme Court in the above-referred judgment, the ground raised for the appellant in assailing the impugned judgment herein would not stand and the appeal thus deserves to be and is accordingly rejected in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh (Supra).”
Therefore, the appeal stands rejected.
Click here to read the Judgment
Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu