- (1.)THESE three Rules are heard together as they arise out of the same order.
(2.)THE petitioner is the husband. The opposite party is the wife. They were married on June 5, 1963. On March 15, 1965 the opposite party filed an application under section 488 of the code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance against the petitioner. The petitioner appeared but ultimately did not turn up and an exparte order for maintenance was made against him on june 29, 1965 directing him to pay a maintenance of Rs. 90/- per month to the opposite party with effect from the date of the order.
(3.)ON November 9, 1967, the opposite party filed an application under section 488 (3) of the Code for enforcement of the order for maintenance for the period from October 29, 1965 to october 29, 1966. Subsequently, on january 9, 1868 the opposite party filed a further application for enforcement of the order for maintenance for the period from October 30, 1966 to November 30, 1967 and lastly, on September, 8, 1969 the opposite party filed an application for enforcement of the order for maintenance for the period from december 1, 1967 to December 31, 1968. The petitioner filed objections to the opposite party's applications for enforcement of the order for maintenance. Further, the petitioner filed an application on June 18, 1970 under section 489 (2) of the Code for cancellation of the order for maintenance. The opposite party resisted this application. The learned Magistrate rejected this application and directed enforcement of the order for maintenance for the periods for which the opposite party had applied for such enforcement. The petitioner then obtained these Rules.