BOMMAREDDI VENKATAPPA REDDY Vs. BOMMAREDDI LAXMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is filed by the husband against whom proceedings in execution for realisation of the amount awarded as maintenance have been taken. His contention is that his offer to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him in accordance with the Proviso to sub-section (3) of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, had been made, but the same has not been considered. The learned Munsif-Magistrate of Madhira has disposed of this contention by stating that a similar objection in the original proceedings was taken by this petitioner and as regards the gunuineness of that offer there has been an adjudication then, it is not necessary for him to consider the same. But I am of the opinion that the lower court acted illegally is not considering the merits of this offer afresh.

(2.) Sub-section (3) of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, in so far as is relevant states:

(3.) The proviso to that sub-section enunciates a salutary principle of Courts having to consider the offer made by the husband to take back the wife and maintain her and if necessary uphold the wife's right to refuse such an offer only when the Court is satisfied that there is just ground for so refusing. In my view, the intendment of this provision is for affording as many opportunities as possible by the Court for composing the differences between the husband and wife. When such is the purpose, the duty cast upon the Court to enquire into the matters arising out of such an officer to state reasons for refusal of that offer should not be brushed aside merely on the ground that on earlier occasions or in the original applications demanding maintenance such offer or offer have been considered. It is no doubt that in this proviso to sub-section (3), it is stated that the Magistrate may consider. But having regard to the nature of the provision, I believe that when offers are made by the husband they cannot be summarily ignored and the use of the word 'may' should not be taken in aid to follow such a course by the Court. To my mind, the use of the 'may' in that Proviso is only with reference to the discretion give to the Court in respect of consideration of the reasons for the refusal pleaded by the wife. I have, therefore, to hold that the lower Court failed to perform the duty imposed upon it by the Proviso to sub-section (3), of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code.