SHAHULAMEEDU Vs. SUBAIDA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A minor point of law which has its echoes in a profound issue affecting the community arises in this Criminal Revision Petition. Since the matter was argued at some length, and with considerable persistence, by counsel for the petitioner I requested Shri Manhu, advocate, to present all the aspects of the case as amicus curiae. He has discharged his duty to the court with refreshing ability and I must place on record my debt of gratitude to him.

(2.) The revision petitioner who married the 1st respondent and had 4 children by her is alleged to have neglected to maintain her and her children and so she moved the Criminal Court under S.488 of the Criminal Procedure Code for award of maintenance in favour of herself and her children. The Court ordered a total sum of Rs. 50/- in favour of this destitute family. The High Court, however, enhanced this figure to Rs. 120/- per mensem by its order dated 28-2-1969 in variance of the 'District Magistrate's order dated 19-2-1968. On 10-4-1969 the wife, who had by then, whether by way of reprisal or not, been divorced by talak uttered by the petitioner, moved the District Magistrate's Court for recovery of arrears of maintenance at the rate awarded by the High Court; (the petitioner who had married another woman offered to maintain the 1st respondent on condition of her living with him). He also raised another point regarding the period during which and the quantum at which maintenance could be claimed.

(3.) As for the quantum, the High Court has settled it at Rs. 120/- per month, and the plea that the rate awarded by the District Magistrate should prevail till that was revised by the High Court and the enhanced rate should be adopted only from the date of the High Court's order is too fallacious to be considered. The order of the High Court takes effect in substitution of the District Magistrate's order and becomes operative as if that were the original order. 1 overrule the objection altogether.