NARESH CHANDRA PANDA Vs. MINARANI PANDA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Yeeshan Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite parties is present. In this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner Naresh Chandra Panda has challenged the impugned order dated 31.03.2005 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Soro in Crl. Misc. Application No.8 of 2005 in issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest as well as distress warrant against the petitioner for realization of the total arrear maintenance dues with the condition not to execute the non-bailable warrant of arrest, if distress warrant amount is realized.

(2.) Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the opposite parties filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance against the petitioner. The opposite party no.1 happens to be the wife and the opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters of the petitioner and the opposite party no.1. The learned J.M.F.C, Soro adjudicated the 125 Cr.P.C. application in Misc. Case No.21 of 2001 and vide judgment and order dated 20.06.2002 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.400/- to the opposite party no.1 and Rs.300/- each to the opposite parties nos.2 and 3 from the date of order towards their maintenance. It appears that subsequently another application under section 127 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite parties for enhancement of the maintenance amount and such application was adjudicated ex-parte and the learned Magistrate enhanced the monthly maintenance amount vide order dated 08.10.2004 to the tune of Rs.500/- for the opposite party no.1 and Rs.1000/- each for the opposite parties nos.2 and 3 and the enhanced maintenance amount was directed to be paid from the date of filing of the 127 Cr.P.C. petition i.e. on 15.09.2003.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that since the petitioner failed to comply the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Soro, an application under section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite parties and accordingly, the impugned order was passed. The learned counsel for the opposite parties further submitted that even though the first maintenance order was passed in the year 2002 and it was enhanced on 08.10.2004 but the petitioner has not paid the maintenance amount at the enhanced rate and thereafter, stopped paying maintenance. He further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate in the issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest and distress warrant.