GOPAL Vs. LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is misconceived. There is a specific bar under Section 41(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the time of institution of the suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings. Similarly in clause(d) of Section 41 of the aforesaid Act an injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceedings in a criminal matter.

(2.) In the instant case, there is no dispute that respondent-1 Lakshmamma has obtained an order of the Magistrate having jurisdiction under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance in the sum of Rs. 75/-. That order has been finally concluded by the dismissal of the appeal and revision presented to the Sessions Court as well as the revision filed in this Court. Therefore, the trial Court where the petitioner has now instituted a suit, seeking a declaration that Lakshmamma is not his wife, cannot injunct the defendant-Lakshmamma from executing a judicial order which is in her favour in the appropriate Court in execution proceedings.

(3.) That view, affirmed by the lower appellate Court cannot be said to be erroneous in law. There is no error of jurisdiction or error of law in the orders of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. There fore, the revision petition is dismissed.