NORBET KISPATTA Vs. MST TERSA KERKETA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THEIR Lordships' above observations connote the nature and the scope of a proceeding under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code An application under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code is not a complaint within the meaning of Section 4(c) of the Code, and a person against whom such an application under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code is made is not charged with and tried for any offence, and so he is not in the position of an accused in such a proceeding. It is well settled that the imprisonment prescribed under Section 488(3), Criminal Procedure Code is not a punishment, but is merely a means of enforcing the payment of the maintenance ordered by the Court. That is why the relief given under Chapter XXXVI is considered to be of civil nature. But all the same the proceedings under the said Chapter are not civil proceedings so as to attract the provisions of the Civil P.C. as the said proceedings are wholly governed by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code That being so the provisions of Orders VI, VII and VIII, Civil P.C., relating to pleadings in a civil suit, do not apply to a petition under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code

(2.) MRS . Padhi, in spite of her best efforts, could not cite any decision in support of her contention to the effect that the petition under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code is in the nature of a pleading in a civil suit and as such relief can only be given in strict accordance with the particulars stated therein. Strict provisions have been made under Orders VI, VII and VIII of the Civil P.C. for signing, verifying and stating all the necessary particulars in the pleadings in civil suit, and as such lot of importance is attached to the averments and the particulars stated in such pleadings. Even in spite of such strict provisions, these pleadings, and specially those coming from the Muffosils, are not construed very strictly. Moreover a petition under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code is not required under the law to be signed and verified in the manner prescribed under the Civil P.C. No doubt if there be statement in the nature of admission in such a petition before the court, those statements, when duly proved, may be admissible in evidence, but such admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted (AIR 1966 SC 405 at p. 410).

(3.) IT was next contended by Mrs. Padhi that in the impugned order there is no finding that the child is unable to maintain itself. There is no substance in this contention. The court below found that the said child was born in September, 1966. The petition was filed in 1967, and by 11.11.1967, when the court below passed the impugned order, the child was only 2 years old, and was certainly unable to maintain itself. The court therefore was perfectly justified in granting the aforesaid maintenance.