ARIVAZHAGAN Vs. M. UMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner/Respondent (Husband) has focused the instant Criminal Revision petition as against the impugned order of Distress Warrant dated 23/4/2012 in C.M.P.No.9459 of 2010 in M.C.No.5 of 2009 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi.

(2.) THE Learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, while passing the impugned order in C.M.P.No.9459 of 2010 in M.C.No.5 of 2009 dated 23/4/2012 has observed that "Petitioner is present. Respondent absent. Filed petition and allowed. Earlier order of substantial payment not complied by Respondent. Both side heard. Revision hearing. But no stay on perusal of records the Court takes that respondent. Purposely avoided for substantial payment. Hence issue Distress Warrant against the respondent" and directed the matter to be called on 16/6/2012.

(3.) ACCORDING to the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Husband, the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi should have seen that C.M.P.No.9459 of 2010 (filed by the First Respondent/Wife under Section 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code) is not maintainable to execute the order of maintenance passed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as if the said order and claim in M.C.No.5 of 2009 has been passed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.