DEVAKI Vs. DOODA S PUTRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed M.C.No.148 of 1970 before the Addl. First Class Magistrate, Mangalore, against her father the respondent, under S.488(3) Criminal Procedure Code, claiming arrears of maintenance at Rs.20 per month, in execution of the order in M.C.No.27 of 1964 of that Court, dt.23-6-1965. Her claim was for the period 24-10-1969 to 23-11-1970. The respondent filed a written statement resisting the application. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application. In this Revision the petitioner assails that order.

(2.) The only material we have is the petition dt.8-12-1970 and the written statement dt.17-3-1971. The petitioner did not seek to file a reply Neither side desired to adduce evidence.

(3.) The contentions of Sri V. G. Vasantha Kumar, learned Advocate of the petitioner, that the Court below ought to have taken the initiative for evidence being adduced, and that there is no provision in the Crl.P.C. for a reply being filed, are propositions which have to be stated only to be rejected. I, however, agree with him that the learned Magistrate was not justified in having recourse to S.489(2) Cr.P.C. and also in speculating on the means of the respondent. Even eschewing these two items, the resultant position remains the same as contended by Sri P. Ramachandra Rao, respondent's learned Advocate.