(1.) THIS revision arises out of the order dated 28-1-1980 passed by Sri C. P. Singh, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Honda, allowing revision of Amanullah Supurdar and setting aside the order dated 19-5-1979, passed by Sri A. R.Sharma. 5th Additional Munsif Magistrate, Gonda, rejecting Amanullah's application dated 8-5-79 for withdrawl of the order of attachment of his property.
(2.) THE facts briefly stated are these :- Ateeq Mohammad and Kumari Shafiun Nisa, the minor son and daughter of Saeek Mohammad, opposite party no. 2, were granted maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Saeek Mohammad, the father, failed to comply with the directions of the court without sufficient cause. THE learned Magistrate, therefore, issued a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fine as provided under section 125 sub-clause (3) CrPC and some moveable property of Saeek Mohammad was attached and given in the custody of Amanullah. It so appears that subsequently Amanullah tailed to produce the attached moveable property for sale when called upon to do so. THE learned Magistrate, thereupon, directed that the amount be realised by the attachment of the property belonging to the Supurdar Amanullah. An application moved by Amanullah for setting aside the aforesaid order of attachment and sale of his property was rejected by the learned Magistrate but in revision the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate for attachment and sale of Amanullah's property THE minors, to wit, Ateeq Mohammad and Km. Shafiun Nisa, who are entitled for the maintenance, have preferred this revision against the aforesaid order of the Sessions Judge.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionists has not been able to refer to any provision under the Code of the Criminal Procedure or any other law whereby the amount may be realised by attachment and sale of the property belonging to Amanullah under the circumstances narrated above.