GAYASUDDIN KHAN @ GYASUDDIN KHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner -Gsyasuddin Khan @ Gyasuddin Khan in the present writ application has sought to challenge the orders dated 13.4.2009 as well as 14, 5.2009 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar In CMC No. 61 of 2004 under Annexure -1 series in which the present Opposite Parties -Mrs. Kahkashan Khan and her son Asad Khan were Petitioners. They had filed a petition under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure which came to disposed of on contest and the present opposite parties 1 and 2 were granted a sum of Rs.15Q0/ - each as maintenance (total Rs.3000/ - per month) from the date of application.

(2.) THE Petitioner had sought to challenge the final order of maintenance before this Court in Crl. Revision No. 751 of 2006 which was ultimately dismissed on 3.2.2009. After dismissal of the criminal revision as noted hereinabove, it appears that the opposite party filed a petition before the learned S.D.J.M, seeking attachment of the salary of the present Petitioner towards realization of unpaid maintenance dues. Vide order dated 3.3.2009, it was noted therein that though a copy of the petition was offered to the learned Counsel appearing for the present Petitioner (O.P. No, in the Court below) since the learned Counsel refused to receive the same, the Drawing and Disbursement Officer of the establishment where the Petitioner was working was called upon to provide the pay particulars within two weeks from the date of the order. Thereafter, by order dated 13.4.2009, it appears that the present opposite party had filed an application with a prayer for realization of the arrear as well a the running maintenance dues from the Petitioner and such an application though served on the learned Counsel for the present Petitioner since he refused to accept the same, direction was issued to the Divisional Manager of the Company where the Petitioner was working, to deduct an amount of Rs.3000/ - per month as current maintenance dues and to make necessary arrangement' for deposit of the same in the account of the opposite party from the date of dismissal of the revision by this Court, i.e. from 3.2.2009. In the said order, it is further noted that the order relating to the arrear dues would be determined after hearing both the parties so also about the mode of payment.

(3.) MR . Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner asserts that since the Petitioner is ready and willing to make payment of maintenance amount of Rs.3000/ - per month directly to the Opposite Party No. 1, their was no necessity or lawful requirement to direct payment by way of attachment of the Petitioner's salary.