Petition U/S 483 CrPC Seeking Direction To Family Court For Expeditious Disposal Of S. 125 CrPC Plea Is Maintainable: Allahabad HC

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi clarified that while deciding an application under Section 125 CrPC, the Family Court exercises the jurisdiction of a magistrate. Therefore, a Section 483 CrPC application seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of an application under Section 125 CrPC would be maintainable.

For context, Section 483 CrPC states that every High Court shall exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it to ensure the expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrates.

The Court was essentially dealing with a plea under Section 483 CrPC filed by two applicants seeking a direction to the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, to expeditiously decide a petition under Section 125 CrPC.

Raising a preliminary objection to the petition, the AGA, appearing for the state, argued that, as per Section 483 CrPC, the HC exercises the power of superintendence over the courts of judicial magistrates subordinate to it. Since the applicants are seeking a direction to the Additional Principal Judge, who is not a court of magistrate, such an application is not maintainable.

To address this preliminary objection, the Single Judge referred to a 2005 Judgment by a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (in Rajesh Shukla v. Meena & Anr.), in which it was held that the family courts exercise the jurisdiction of a judicial magistrate first class while handling proceedings under Chapter 9 of the CrPC (Order For Maintenance Of Wives, Children And Parents).

Against this backdrop, the Court observed thus:

“As the Family Court exercises 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.”

Accordingly, the Court rejected the preliminary objection raised by the AGA.

Regarding the issuance of a direction to the family court to expedite the hearing, the Court noted that the petitioners' application under Section 125(1) CrPC for interim maintenance, pending since April 18, 2023, had exceeded the sixty-day period prescribed for disposal as per the third proviso to Section 125(1) CrPC.

Consequently, the Court, while allowing the petition, directed the Additional Principal Judge (APJ-07), Family Court, Lucknow, to promptly dispose of the pending application for interim maintenance to the petitioners, considering the statutory requirement outlined in the third proviso appended to Section 125(1) CrPC.