Here are a collection of life cycles of various cases
Listed below are a reasonably laid out sequence of events in a Maintenance Case filed under Section 125 of CrPC.
Initial signs of facing a Maintenance case u/s 125 CrPC
This is the 3rd false case after the 498A IPC and Domestic Violence cases, that you may face. This case completes what is colloquially called as Full package. First a criminal case is filed so that Police power can be misused and when that does not break you, Civil reliefs are prayed for through Domestic Violence case. When even that plot fails and you don’t budge, the final attack comes in the form of this maintenance case, in which they think there is a sure shot success in extracting money from you. How comical bozos these are… hahahaha
The petition/application u/s 125 CrPC containing the facts of the case, stating the circumstances under which the wife (as per the law, parents or children can also seek maintenance in cases of neglect) seeks to claim maintenance, all personal relevant details is filed before the Family Court (or jurisdictional Junior Civil Judge Court if Family Court is not available).
Issue of Notice to the Respondent
The Family Court scrutinizes the petition and issues notice to the husband against whom the petition has been filed by the wife. Petitioner copy may be sent along with notice.
Reference to Reconciliation/Mediation
The parties may be directed to appear before the court for reconciliation or may be directed to mediation and efforts are made to reconcile them first in an effort to avoid litigation.
If the reconciliation proceedings after being conducted by the family court are successful, then the matter stands settled. If they lead to failure, then the Court proceeds with the petition to decide it on merits.
Written Statement (of objections)
After giving a copy of the petition to the Respondent, the Family Court directs the opposite part to file a reply/WS/Counter to the maintenance petition stating the facts which he/she accepts or denies. Both the parties are also asked to file their detailed Income Affidavit (as per Rajnesh Ve Neha Case) so that it can infer the capabilities and liabilities. Petitioner must be given a copy of reply.
The petitioner is directed to file a rejoinder/rebuttal to reply filed by the opposite party. The application for interim maintenance, if any filed by the petitioner, is decided by the court at this stage of the case, based on pleadings and affidavits alone. No evidence will be entertained to decide Interim applications. Respondent must be given a copy.
Framing of Issues
The court then proceeds further and frames issues for adjudication and the matter is posted for evidence of the parties.
The petitioner is directed to lead its evidence by way of filing the relevant documents, papers, etc. and by summoning all its witnesses. List of witnesses must be given to other side before examining the first prosecution witness. Once prosecution witness examination completes by way of Chief Examination Affidavit, the witness will face Cross Examination from the Counsel of opposite party and the deposition of each witness is recorded, up on oath.
The respondent is directed to lead its evidence by way of filing the relevant documents, papers, etc. and by summoning all its witnesses. This is optional and the Respondent may forego examination/ evidence, if they think that the prosecution failed to support their case.
FINAL ARGUMENTS –
The final arguments in the matter are held and the matter is decided by the court. Written Arguments may also be submitted to the Family Court, as a best practice.
The Court finally passes the final order/judgement where it may either dismiss the petition or allow the petition and direct the other party to pay an amount as directed by the court monthly.
Ms. Suprajaa Rajan (B.Com., LL.B.)
A single-judge bench of AP High Court held as follows,
From Para 6, Ground-1
6. On the other hand, respondent No.2 submits that petitioner cannot raise a contention that 16 other complaints were lodged by respondent No.2 that she is habituated in lodging complaints against public servants and others, as it is her personal issue and there is no illegality in the order under revision. She submits that while exercising power under Section 156(3) Courts can forward complaint to Police without issuing notice to the accused. Hence, there is no illegality in the order impugned and this revision is liable to be dismissed. Relied on Priyanka Srivastava and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
7. In the case on hand, the Magistrate has only directed the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for investigation and directed the police to file report by17.06.2021. The Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held that when the Magistrate applies his mind and order for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C, he could not be said to have taken cognizance of offence and by doing so, it will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was the primary duty of the police to investigate. In this case, the Magistrate has not taken cognizance, but only referred the matter to the police for investigation. At this juncture, as argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that sanction should have been obtained as the petitioner is a public servant has no legs to stand.
From Para 8, Ground-2
Busarapu Satya Yesu Babu Vs State of AP and Sake Roja on 05 Nov 2021
8. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C and directed to submit a report which is an interlocutory order and revision against such an order under Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C is barred under law. However, after completion of investigation, if Police come to the conclusion that complaint is filed with false allegations, they can as well close the case by referring it as false. The revision is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of its maintainability as it isnot final order and it falls under interlocutory order, which cannot be challenged.
A single-judge bench of Patna High Court held as follows,
Ajay Kumar Saboo Vs State of Bihar on 30 Jun 2017
It appears from the averment made in the instant petition that at the relevant time the petitioner was Managing Director and whole time Director of the Company and the complaint was filed by Registrar of the Company under section 58(A) of the Companies Act read with Rule-3 (i)(a) proviso (i) Rule 10 of the Company within (Acceptance and Deposits) Rules, 1975. The reason for rejection of the application under Section 205 Cr. P.C. as appears from Annexure-2 that the offence is non-bailable. The court below committed error of jurisdiction in ignoring the fact that in the instant case after taking cognizance, summon was issued by the court below and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Ram Harsh Das case reported in 1998(1) PLJR 502, the court was required to consider the application of the petitioner on its own merits without being prejudiced by the facts that the offence as alleged is non-bailable. In similar circumstances, a Bench of this Court in Cr. Revision Nos. 543, 454 of 2006 in the case of Manish Giri vs. State of Bihar reported in 2007 (1) PLJR has discussed the scope under section 205 Cr.P.C. and noticing the Division Bench judgment in the case of Ram Harsh Das (supra) and various other judgments held out that power to refuse permission under section 205 Cr.P.C. should not be used as a substitute for ultimate punishment which could be awarded. The court decided the matter but also in the last paragraph issued direction to the Registrar to circulate the copy of the order for to all the Civil Courts in the State of Bihar for guidelines of Judicial Officers in future.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid judgment which was circulated to all the Civil Courts, the court below rejected the application of the petitioner filed to dispense with personal appearance vide order dated 9.12.2010 and even the revisional court in Cr. Revision No. 97 of 2011 has failed to exercise judicial discretion for the ends of justice and as such the petitioner was constraint to approach this Court by way of filing the instant application.
Casemine version:Ajay Kumar Saboo Vs State of Bihar on 30 Jun 2017 (CM ver)
A single judge bench of Calcutta High Court held as follows,
The Ld. Magistrate dismissed that application on the ground, inter alia, that Section 205 of the Cr. P.C. is not applicable in a case which is instituted on police report. That is not the interpretation of Section 205. Sub-section (1) of Section 205 does not limit the application only to a complaint case, it can also be applied even in a case instituted on police report. So, the reason that has been given by the Ld. Magistrate for refusing the personal exemption of the petitioner is not at all logical and it is illegal.
Casemine version:Sukla Mukherjee Vs State on 13 Dec 1994
Other Sources :
Single judge bench of Patna High Court held as follows,
First two paras
1. Heard. Present application is directed against the Trial Court’s order dated 16.6.2006 by which the petitioner’s prayer for exemption from personal appearance in terms of Section 205 Cr.P.C., has been rejected on the sole ground, that the prosecution is for an offence under Section 498A which is a warrant case, and, as such, the privilege under Section 205 Cr.P.C. cannot be extended.
2. To my mind, such an order is not sanctioned in law and shows the inability of the learned Magistrate to read the provision correctly. Section 205 Cr.P.C. is preconditioned on summons being issued at the first instance. Here, it is not disputed and is apparent from the impugned order itself, that summons were issued at the first instance. Summons for appearance predicates appearance through Lawyer or in person, it does not provide that a person has to appear in person. Therefore, it is simple that if pursuant to summons issued, a person to whom summons are issued appears through Lawyer, then compliance is complete and his appearance is valid. In such a case, no Court can then reject the appearance and direct that the persons summoned, must appear in person as by appearance through the lawyer, he has already submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court. He can now be taken into custody only, if, pursuant to his appearance and the bond executed for continuing to appear he defaults and not otherwise.
Casemine version:Md. Naimuddin Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 08 Dec 2006 (CM)
Legal Quest version:Md. Naimuddin Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 08 Dec 2006 (LQ)
Citations : [2006 SCC ONLINE PAT 977], [2007 PLJR 2 260]