MADHAV KUMAR ANAND Vs. SUDESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I had at one occasion heard Criminal Revision Nos. 495 and 822 of 1983 and reserved judgment. In the meantime, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 184-M of 1984 which had intimate bearing with the afore-referred to Criminal revisions. Since after notice of motion, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 184-M of 1984 had been placed before me and I had issued notice, thereon, I ordered in the fitness of things fixation of the aforesaid two criminal revisions for re-hearing. Now all the aforesaid three matters are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THIS is an acrimonious litigation Madhav Kumar Anand the petitioner and his wife Sudesh Kumari, respondent. Undisputably, the parties were married on 9.10.1976 at Amritsar. At that time, the petitioner was a Stenographer working with the Income Tax Department at Amritsar. The respondent was in a temporary employment with a private School. Though the petitioner claims no knowledge, of it, the respondent claims that a female child was born to them on 26.11.1978. The parties had lived together at Amritsar till 26.6.1978 and thereafter the respondent had gone to her mother's house within Amritsar itself. In August, 1978, the petitioner was transferred to Jammu and Kashmir State in the Office of the Income Tax Officer, Srinagar and the said child was born thereafter. He has been in that State till this day. Statedly, the respondent never lived with the petitioner after 21.6.1978.

(3.) ON 6.4.1981, the respondent filed the execution application before the learned Magistrate. Notice was issued by the learned Magistrate to the petitioner. He raised objections before the learned Magistrate. Those in nutshell were that since he was residing in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the maintenance order was not executable, as in that territory the Code of Criminal Procedure was not applicable as also two third of his salary could not be attached as had been done by the Court. Additionally, he pleaded that the respondent had in the meantime become a practising lawyer and become an earning hand disentitling her to maintenance. The learned Magistrate vide his order dated 3.12.1981 rejected all the objections by holding that the petitioner could be legally proceeded despite the fact that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not extend to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He further observed that the petitioner was not employed by the Jammu and Kashmir Government but was rather an employee of the Central Government and could be posted to any State where the Code extended. With regard to the attachment of two-third salary of the petitioner, he observed that there was no legal bar for the purpose and that if he was aggrieved against the order of attachment of his salary, he could challenge the same in any higher court. Regarding the respondent having become an Advocate, he observed that she was only working as an apprentice with a lawyer but if the petitioner wanted any alteration in the maintenance allowance on that score he could regularly apply for the purpose. For the afore-referred to views he dismissed the objection petition. The petitioner challenged the said order in this Court in Criminal Revision No. 37 of 1982 but the same was dismissed inlimine on 12.1.1982. He made another attempt to get the order upset by approaching the Court of Session for the purpose but that petition too was dismissed in limine as being time-barred and without jurisdiction.