DANDA CHENCHAIAH Vs. DANDA MANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition to revise the order of the learned Judicial First Glass Magistrate, Darsi, under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code awarding maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 40 per month. The main argument of Sri Venkatarama Sistry, the learned Advocate for the petitioner-respondent is that his petition for restitution of conjugal rights is pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kavali, and that section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for the award of maintenance during the pendency of those proceedings and hence the application under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable at any rate until the disposal of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. I am unable to agree with this contention.

(2.) THE objectof section 488,Criminal Procedure Code is the prevention of vagrancy and to provide neglected wives and children a cheap and speedy remedy. This remedy is irrespective of other remedies such neglected wives and children may have under th':ir personal law or under any statute. THE existence of other more efficacious remedy is no bar to the maintainability of a petition under section 488,Criminal Procedure Code. Indeed it is irrelevant. Similarly the pendency of other proceedings where the status of the parties is in question or where a husband seeks some matrimonial relief is no bar to the maintainability of a petition under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. Nor can the proceedings under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code be made to await the result of such other proceedings. Otherwise the object of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code providing for a cheap and speedy remedy will be frustrated. However, where a competent civil Court declares the rights of the parties, the Magistrate passing an order under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code is empowered to cancel or suitably vary the order. This is provided under section 489 (2), Criminal Procedure Code and this provision amply protects the rights of the parties as may ultimately be determined by the civil Courts' Mr. Venkatarama Sastry contends that section 488, Criminal Procedure Code is inconsistent with section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore, by virtue of section 4 (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, section 24 of the Act must prevail over section 488 Criminal Procedure Code. I am unable to find any inconsistency between the two provisions. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act as does section 488, Criminal Procedure Code provides for the award of maintenance and does not relieve the husband from his duty to maintain the wife or children during the pendency of proceedings in which their status is in question or other proceedings where the matrimonial reliefs are claimed. THE petition is, therefore, rejected. Revision petition rejected.