ASHRIF ALI Vs. MANJURAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Ashrif Ali seeks quashing of the order of the Magistrate 1st Class, Dari vide which his defence was struck-off.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for the decision of the present petition are that Manjurain and others who are wife and minor children of Ashrif Ali, petitioner, brought an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for the grant of maintenance to them. Interim maintenance was allowed by the Magistrate and the petitioner did not comply with that order; he claimed his inability to pay the interim maintenance. The Magistrate vide order dated October 10, 1990 struck-off the defence of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged this order and the arguments put forth by the learned Counsel are that the order for interim maintenance could only be enforced under the provisions of Section 125 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure but no other order could be passed to enforce the same. I am, however, unable to endorse this argument of the learned Counsel. The powers of the Magistrate to award the interim maintenance during the pendency of this petition were recognised in 1986 (I) Recent Criminal Reports 83 (SC): 561, Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat. There lordships help as under:

(3.) I thus do not accept the proposition that the only remedy availalble to the party who has been granted interim maintenance is to seek execution of the order under Section 125 (3) of the Code. The Magistrate has all the powers to make his orders effective and this power includes the power to strike off the defence. If this power is not recognised, this will frustrate the very purpose of grant of interim maintenance. A husband/father can always delay the proceedings by playing delaying tactics and keep his wife and children on the road. Obviously the very purpose of introducing Section 125 was to save the wife and the children from vagrancy.