RAJ KUMAR Vs. KRISHNA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY the facts are that respondent Shrimati Krishan Kumari was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month vide order dated 10th December. 1982 under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure. That order was made effective from the date of application i. e. 11th April, 1981. She filed an execution application against her husband i.e. the present petitioner, for the recovery of Rs. 3,600/- as arrears of maintenance allowance with effect from 11th April, 198.1 to 10th April, 1983. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, in whose court that application was pending, issued notice to the petitioner, who on appearance stated that he had no money to pay Holding that the petitioner had failed to comply with the order of the Court without sufficient cause, the learned Judicial Magistrate ordered that he be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 24th months i. e. the period for which the maintenance had not been paid Feeling aggrieved against that order, the present revision petition has been filed by the husband.

(2.) THE petition is liable to be accepted on the sole ground that the learned Judicial Magistrate did not comply with the provisions of Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant portion of the said provision reads as follows:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent further argued that the revision petition ought to have been filed first in the Court of Session. Of course if the petitioner had done so. it would have been better. However, Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives concurrent powers of revision to the High Court as well as the Sessions Judge. Therefore, this petition cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that the petitioner did not approach the Sessions Court.