STATE OF KERALA Vs. VIMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Qulin recommending that the order of the learned Magistrate directing the counter-petitioner In M. C,. 12 of 11231 (M. E-) to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10/- per mensem Under Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code, be set aside as there is no executable order-

(2.) WHAT happened in the case was that pending the proceedings in count the parties filed a compromise petition and stated in Court that they had compromised the matter and the learned Magistrate passed an order striking off the case from the file-The correct order that ought to have been passed by the learned Magistrat was "petition on compromise filed. Order in terms of the compromise. '1 That would have meant that there was an order for the payment of the amount in terms of the petition of compromise and would have put the matter beyond all doubt that the provisions of Section 488 (3) Criminal Procedure Code could be invoked in order to secure the carrying on it of what the parties had agreed to do It is unfortunate that no such order was passed by the Court.

(3.) AUTHORITY for the position that the correct order must be as stated above may be had in the decision reported in Debjani Biswas v. Rasik Lai Biswas A. I. R. 1941 Cal 558; T. K. Thayumanuvar v. Asanambal Ammal A. I. R. 1958 Mys 190; G. P. Sundaram v. Rathnavathi Ammal 1955 Andh WR 441 and Rama Bai v. Bhoja Rao 1937 Mad WN 640.