G D SUNDARAM Vs. RATNAVATHI ANIMAL
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Referred Judgements :-
LINGADU V. LABBAKKA
MANGAYYAMMA V. APPALASWAMI
SHAM SINGH V. MT.HAKAM DEVI
MT.RAHIM BIBI V. KHAIR DIN.
BUDHU RAM V. MT. KHEM DEVI
KRISHNAPPA CHETTIAR V. STVAGAMI ACHI.
SHAM SINGH V. MT. HAKAM DEVI
PUNN DEB VS. BISHNULI
P MADHAVAN VS. MUNIR BEGUM
RAM SARAN DAS VS. MTRAM PIARI
Click here to view full 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
(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."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.