SHAKUNTALABAI Vs. NAND KISHORE JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Smt. Shakuntalabai w/o Nandkishore Joshi is hereby challenging correctness, property and legality of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mhow in the matter of M. Cr. C. No. 116/86 dated 13. 3. 90 as well as the order passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Mhow in the matter of Cr. R. 12/90 dated 19. 11. 91.

(2.) AS I gather from the arguments of Shri Umesh Maheshwari the petitioner has a grievance that though the Court order granting alimony in favour of Shakuntala at Rs. 200/- per month payable by her husband Nandkishore Joshi, when an application was made for execution of that order, the learned Magistrate did not send Nandkishore Joshi to jail. It also appears to be grievance of the petitioner, as depicted by the arguments advanced, that though the petitioner is having two houses belonging to him, learned Magistrate unnecessarily gave importance to the report of a police constable indicating that Nandkishore Joshi does not possess any movable property. It appears to be third grievance of the petitioner that when in previous inquiry it has been held that Nandkishore Joshi was having two houses, learned Magistrate is making again inquiry for the purpose of assessing whether Nandkishore Joshi is having property and is able to pay the maintenance to petitioner. Shri S. H. Agrawal appearing for Nandkishore Joshi, submitted that impugned order of the Magistrate is correct, proper and legal and Shakuntalabai's application deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) SHRI Umesh Maheshwari, Counsel for the petitioner, relied on the Judgment of this High Court in the matter of Durga Singh Lodhi v. Prembai and Ors. , reported in 1990 JLC 370 in which it has been observed that "person suffering liability to pay maintenance allowance Under Section 125 (1) Cr. P. C. cannot avoid that liability on the ground of not possessing any visible property. If the husband is able bodied person, he is bound to discharge the liability else he may be sent to jail.