JAYACHANDRAN Vs. MANJULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband/petitioner herein filed this criminal revision against the issuance of "Distress warrant" against him for his failure to appear before the Court to answer the claim for recovery of maintenance of Rs. 60,000/- relating to the period from 8.8.2007 to 8.8.2008. The petition was filed by the wife under Section 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for directing the respondent/husband to clear all the arrears to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. for 12 months. Inspite of due summons, the husband failed to appear before the Court concerned, which compelled the Court to set him ex-parte and to allow the petition and to issue a "Distress Warrant" through the Additional Educational Officer, Tirupathur.

(2.) The said order was challenged herein on the ground that the proper relief to be granted under Section 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code is, in the event of failure of the husband to pay maintenance arrears, to issue "Distraint Warrant" as provided under Sections 421 and 431 of the Code either for attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the petitioner or to issue warrant to the Collector of the District, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears from the movable or immovable property or both. The learned counsel for the petitioner would in support of such contention also cite authority of this Court in S.T. Prabhakar v. Secretary to Government, Home Department and Others, 2011 2 Crimes(Mad) 139.

(3.) It is true that the learned brother Judge after detailed discussion has observed in paragraph 12 of his judgment that the "Distress Warrant" issued for the failure to pay arrears of maintenance is illegal and set aside the conviction and imprisonment of the accused/husband and released him forthwith. For better appreciation, paragraphs 9 and 10 are extracted below: