SATYA NARAIN Vs. JAMMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an order dated the 22nd of February, 1971, made by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. It is urged that the respondent had never applied for obtaining any maintenance for her children and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge fell into .an error in concluding that the maintenance had been allowed for the respondent, the wife and the children. Mr. Sud is justified in raising that contention.

(2.) A perusal of the order made by the trial court as well as of the petition preferred under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it clear that Jamna Devi respondent claimed maintenance only for herself and not for the children. In the petition she has stated in paragraph 5 :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the agreement Exibit P. 1 maintenance beyond the amount mentioned therein could not have been granted. He relies on sub-section 14) of section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter called "the Code") :-