KANTAPPA Vs. SHARANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was ordered by the Munsiff-Magistrate of Bhalki to pay maintenance of Rs. 20 per month to his wife the respondent. The petitioner failed to comply with this order. The wife made an application under Section 488(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that the petitioner had failed to pay maintenance as ordered by the court for one year from 2nd August 1962 to 2nd August 1963. The petitioner's counsel filed an application requesting the court to grant two months' time to make the payment. This application was opposed by the wife on the ground that in spite of the warrant issued by the Court, he had evaded payment. The Magistrate refused to grant time to the petitioner and passed the following order: Respondent's application for time is rejected. He should be kept in the prison till be pays the entire arrears standing due. He is committed to prison. Against this order a revision petition was filed in the court of Session at Bidar in Criminal Revision Petition No. 26/6 of 1964. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition. The petitioner then preferred this revision petition.

(2.) It is contended by Mr. Jagannatha Shetty, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the Magistrate was wrong in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of time to pay the arrears of maintenance and he was not right in passing an order directing imprisonment to the petitioner without specifying the period. Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:

(3.) The relevant provision for the purpose of this case is Sub-section (3). Sub-section (3) refers to the enforcement of the order passed under Sub-section (1). The words "fails without sufficient cause" were substituted for "Wilfully neglects" by Act 18 of 1923 as the interpretation of the latter words led to difficulties. The legislature has deliberately used this expression obviously intending that the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up should be in a position to use his judicial discretion having regard to all the circumstances and that such judicial discretion should not be fettered or limited by any definite rales. Now non-payment without sufficient cause is sufficient.