LAWS(ORI)-1959-10-3

ANNAPURNA DEVI Vs. SATRUGHNA MAHAKUD

Decided On October 20, 1959
ANNAPURNA DEVI Appellant
V/S
SATRUGHNA MAHAKUD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate of Kalahandi recommending the setting aside of an order under Section 489 Cr. P. Code passed by Sri B.C. Mitter, Magistrate First Class of Rhowanipatna.

(2.) The material facts are as follows: The petitioner Annapurna Devi who was the wife of opposite party Satrughna Mahakud filed a petition under Section 488, Cr. P.C. on 3-5-54 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kalahandi claiming maintenance for herself and her minor children at Rs. 100/- per month. That case was heard and disposed of by Sri R.V. Mohanty who by his order dated 20-10-54 dismissed the petition holding that the evidence was not sufficient to show that the husband refused or neglected to maintain her. Against that order the petitioner filed a revision (Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1954) before the Additional District Magistrate of Kalahandi. During the pendency of the revision petition the parties entered into compromise and filed a compromise petition to the following effect;

(3.) On receipt of this compromise petition the learned Additional District Magistrate passed the following order on 17-12-54: "Parties present with their lawyers. They file petition of compromise which is accepted and the petition is disposed of in terms of their compromise." On 24-12-57 the husband filed a petition purporting to be one under Section 489(1) Cr. P. Code for reduction of the amount of maintenance. This was objected to by the wife and one of the points taken on her behalf was that the petition was not maintainable inasmuch as the maintenance ordered on the previous occasion was not a monthly cash maintenance as contemplated by Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate, Sri B.C. Mitter who heard the matter overruled the objection giving on Punn Deb v. Mt. Bishnuli, AIR 1950 All 454 and reduced the quantum of maintenance after commuting the paddy maintenance to cash allowance of Rs. 8/- per month. Against this order of the learned Magistrate the wife filed a revision petition before the Additional District Magistrate of Kalahandi urging that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction under Section 489 Cr. P.C. to alter the rate of maintenance and convert the yearly rate to a monthly rate.