KIRPARAM CHHOTAN RAOT Vs. KALIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application arises out of the order dated the 7th of August, 1958 passed by the Magistrate First Class Bilaspur, directing the present applicant to pay arrears of maintenance,

(2.) An order directing maintenance to be paid to the non-applicant at the rate of Rs. 12/ p.m. was passed against the present applicant on 16-5-1956. The first application for recovery of the arrears of maintenance was filed by Mst. Kalibai on 2-8-1956. The non-applicant could not be served throughout these proceedings. The application was eventually dismissed on 1-5-1957 for default in appearance on the part of Mst. Kalibai. Another application wad thereupon filed by her on 5-6-1957. The present applicant on being served with a notice raised an objection to the effect that he was willing to maintain the wife at his own house and there was, therefore, no just ground for her to refuse to five with him. It may be noted at this stage that the husband had by this time contracted a marriage with another wife. The proceedings thereafter continued for a number of hearings and were eventually terminated on 12-3-1958 by an order of dismissal for default in appearance on the part of Mst. Kalibai. A third application was, thereafter, presented by Mst. Kalibai on 31-3-1958 for realisation of the arrears. The husband at this time raised another objection, namely, that the application having not been presented within one year from the date on which the amount or maintenance claimed fell due, a warrant for its recovery could not be issued against him. The learned Magistrate overruled this contention and an application in revision preferred before the Court of Sessions also met a similar fate. The applicant has now come up in revision before this Court.

(3.) The only point urged by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of this revision is that by virtue of the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 488 Cr. P. C., the present application could not have been entertained. The proviso on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the applicant runs as under: