JAGOO SARJU KATHAUTE Vs. RAMKALI JAGOO KATHAUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Criminal Revision Application the applicant seeks quashing of the proceedings attaching his salary amounting to Rs. 5,450 issued by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 8th Court, Nagpur in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 34/82 (Ramkali v. Jagoo) on an application filed by the present non-applicant for enforcement of the order of maintenance.

(2.) The applicant is the husband, while the non-applicant No. 1 is his wife and the non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are the children out of their wedlock. The non-applicant No. 1 had filed proceedings under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, claiming maintenance for herself and her minor children-non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3. The proceedings were contested by the husband-applicant and after recording of evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the non-applicant No. 1 was entitled to grant of maintenance as also her two minor childred. The Trial Court directed the applicant husband to pay Rs. 175 per month as maintenance allowance to non-applicants.

(3.) The applicant husband, however, failed to pay the arrears of maintenance to the non-applicants and it is thereafter that the wife non-applicant No. 1 filed an application for recorvery of maintenance allowance and for order executing the recovery of the same. The said application was filed on 10-5-1982 before the Trial Court. It was Miscellaneus Criminal Case No. 34 of 1982. On 10-5-1982, the applicant husband who was non-applicant in the said proceedings was absent. On that date, the wife Ramkali filed another application stating inter alia that the husband has been ordered to pay maintenance to her at the rate of Rs. 75 per month and Rs. 50 each for the two minor children. She further contended that she had applied for execution of the said order, but the husband has been seeking time to file reply to the execution application. She further submitted that the husband is absent on 10-5-1982 (the date of her application). He is thus avoiding payment of the maintenance arrears. She, therefore, submitted that since the husband has no valuables to attach, she desires that the salary of the husband should be attached. She then gave the address of the employer of the husband as "The Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Ajni, Nagpur." Upon this application dated 10-5-1982 the learned Judicial Magistrate passed a very brief order as follows: "Non-applicant absent. Applicant with her counsel. Issue warrant of attachment of salary of non-applicant to the tune of Rs. 5,450". It is this order which is impugned in the present revision.