RAM NARAIN Vs. SMT. MANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against the order dated 3 -7 -1969 passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate (North), Varanasi, in Criminal Case No. 18/115 of 1968 Manki Devi v/s. Ram Narain Under Sec. 488 Code of Criminal Procedure. This order of the magistrate was challenged in Cr. Rev. No. 1172 of 1969 before the Sessions Judge who by his order dated 30 -10 -1971 dismissed the revision application and did not make the reference.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the opposite party Manki Devi, being the wedded wife of the Applicant Ram Narain, appeared to have been neglected by Ram Narain and she was not being maintained and therefore, she applied for maintenance allowance against Ram Narain the Applicant before this Court. The said application as it appears was filed on 20th of June, 1967. The proceedings went on and on 16 -4 -1968 an order Under Sec. 488(1) Code of Criminal Procedure was passed and she was allowed maintenance allowance of Rs. 35/ - per month and the Applicant was directed Jo pay the maintenance allowance to Her. This maintenance allowance was made payable from the date of the application, i.e., 20th of June, 1967. The maintenance allowance was not paid to the opposite party by the Applicant and therefore, on 11 -4 -1969 Smt. Manki Devi applied Under Sub -clause (3) of Sec. 488 Code of Criminal Procedure and the magistrate directed a warrant to be issued on 3rd of July, 1969.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Applicant stressed before me that this order dated 3rd of July, 1969, was passed without any notice to the Applicant Ram Narain. In my opinion the contention raised is not well -founded. From the record it appears that on 13th of June, 1969, the Applicant appeared before the magistrate and he complained that an attachment was effected of his properties and raised various other objections. From the record it does appear that an order dated 2nd of May, 1969, was passed but the magistrate, gave an opportunity to the Applicant and on 3rd of July, 1969, passed the said order. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Applicant was given no opportunity to contest the application by the magistrate. The Applicant himself appeared before the magistrate and filed a written objection.