SARDAR BEG SAHIB Vs. SIDHANI BI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by the husband against the order issuing a warrant for recovering the amount due by him by way of arrears of maintenance in the manner provided for levying fines. The two grounds urged before me by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner are (1) The warrant in case can be issued only for arrears of 12 months and in the present case, the warrant has been issued for arrears of 51 months, and for this reason, the warrant was void. (2) Before issuing the warrant, the court should have given him notice to show cause why he has not complied with the order of maintenance.

(2.) In this case, the petition for maintenance was filed by the wife, the respondent herein, in the year 1978. It was numbered as M.C.127 of 1978 and the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet, passed an order granting maintenance to the tune of Rs. 100 per mensem by order dated 19-10-1978. There was an appeal by the husband, and that appeal was disposed of on 16-10-1980 in Cr. App. 115 of 1978 confirming the order of the learned Magistrate. On 24-2-1981, the wife filed a petition under S.128 Cr. P.C. praying the Magistrate court to take action for collection of the arrears. In that petition, it is stated that the arrears of maintenance for the period of 35 months from 21-3-1978 to 20-2-1981, worked out to Rs. 3500, and that the husband had paid only Rs. 200 so that the balance of Rs. 3300 was due. A distress warrant was issued by the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Ulundurpet, in that petition filed by the wife. After that, the husband paid an additional amount of Rs. 400. Then, the wife filed another petition under S.128 Cr.P.C. before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet on 23-12-1982, stating that from 21-3-1978 to 20-12-1982, the arrears of maintenance for 57 months worked out to Rs. 5700 and that only a sum of Rs. 600 has been so far paid. She prayed the Magistrate to take action for collection of the arrears. That petition was numbered as Cr. M.P.3700 of 1982. The learned Magistrate ordered issue of warrant, it is not known as to whether the warrant had been actually issued or not. But the husband filed on 31st January 1983 preliminary objections against that petition. This was followed by another petition by the husband to recall the non-bailable warrant stated to have been issued on 24-11-1982. That was also numbered as Cr.M.P.3700 of 1986. In Cr. M.P. 3700 of 1982, both the parties were elaborately heard, and the learned Magistrate overruled the objection of the husband that the warrant can be issued only for the arrears of maintenance amounting to 12 months.

(3.) The relevant provision of law in this matter viz. the first proviso to Sec. 125(3) Cr. P.C. is as follows -