G D SUNDARAM Vs. RATNAVATHI ANIMAL
LAWS(APH)-1955-3-21
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 07,1955

G.D.SUNDARAM Appellant
VERSUS
RATNAVATHI ANIMAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LINGADU V. LABBAKKA [REFERRED TO]
MANGAYYAMMA V. APPALASWAMI [REFERRED TO]
SHAM SINGH V. MT.HAKAM DEVI [REFERRED TO]
MT.RAHIM BIBI V. KHAIR DIN. [REFERRED TO]
BUDHU RAM V. MT. KHEM DEVI [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAPPA CHETTIAR V. STVAGAMI ACHI. [REFERRED TO]
SHAM SINGH V. MT. HAKAM DEVI [REFERRED TO]
PUNN DEB VS. BISHNULI [REFERRED TO]
P MADHAVAN VS. MUNIR BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
RAM SARAN DAS VS. MTRAM PIARI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

PARAMU SIVARAJAN VS. LAKHSMI MEENAKSHY [LAWS(KER)-1965-9-4] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)In this petition the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kowur enforcing a part of the order passed in M.C. No. 2 of 1954 on his file in execution is sought to be revised. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, a few material facts may be stated, Respondents 1 to 5 herein filed a petition for maintenance under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kowur (M.C. No. 2 of 1954) During the pendency of this application the parties reached an agreement as to the rate of maintenance payable to them by the husband, the present petitioner, namely, Rs. 45 a month. It was further agreed between the parties that the husband i.e., the present petitioner should pay a sum of Rs. 200 towards the marriage expenses of the eldest daughter, i.e., the present 2nd respondent. The Court passed an order in accordance with the terms of this compromise. As the petitioner committed default in the payment of the amounts stipulated, the respondents put, in execution the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
(2.)This was resisted by the petitioner on two grounds, viz., that when the parties settled amicably the criminal Courts have no jurisdiction to pass any further orders, but to dismiss the application under sect.on 488, Criminal Procedure Code and secondly that as the provision relating to the marriage expenses could not fall within the purview of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code the whole order passed by the Magistrate was illegal and unenforceable. The Magistrate overruled the first objection. But so far as the second objection is concerned, he thought the provision for the marriage expenses was foreign to the scope of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code and could not be enforced. In that view, he allowed the execution to proceed only in respeci of the maintenance payable to the respondents.
(3.)In this Revision case both the points are canvassed by Mr. Ramanujulu Naidu. The foundation for the argument on the first objection is that of a ruling of the Lahore High Court in Sham Singh v. Mt. Hakam Devi, A.I.R. 1930 Lahore 534. The facts of that case are these One Hakam Devi applied for maintenance under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code against her husband. During the pendency of the application the parties compromised as to the rate of maintenance payable by the husband to the wife. On the basis of this compromise, the Magistrate fixed the monthly maintenance at Rs. 5. Subsequently, she put in a petition for enhancement of the maintenance on the ground that her father who was maintaining her before had died. As the notice of enhancement could not be served on the husband respondent, an ex parte order was passed by the Court enhancing it to Rs. 10. In a revision against that order, Justice Addison while holding that there was no justification for passing an ex parte order raising the rate of maintenance without hearing the respondent, incidentally observed that the original order itself " is not good in law" and "the parties having compromised at that time, the Magistrate should have better dismissed the application under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code and left the parties to enforce the compromise in the Civil Courts."
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.