SOHAN LAL Vs. RAJ KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hoshiarpur in Cr. Application RBT No. 21 of 1998-99 dated 20-11-1999.

(2.) The 1st. respondent is the wife of the petitioner while the respondents 2 to 4 are his children. They obtained an order of maintenance from the Trial Court against the petitioner under Section 125, Cr. P.C.Part of the maintenance amount remains unpaid. Therefore, the respondents filed an application for recovery of the said amount of maintenance by way of arrest of the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class issued the conditional warrant of arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed this criminal revision petition.

(3.) The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the warrants of arrest are liable to be set aside since the Magistrate has not taken steps for proceedings against the property of the petitioner and, therefore, the warrants of arrest are contrary to the provisions, of sub-section (3) of Section 125, Cr. P.C.It may straightway be mentioned before examining the legal position that the petitioner has not shown either before the learned Judicial Magistrate or in this revision petition that he possesses any property. There is no averment in the grounds of revision or in the affidavit filed by him that he possesses any property. No details of the property possessed by the petitioner have been given. It is therefore to be taken that the petitioner does not possess any property. When he does not possess any property, there is no question of issuing any warrant of attachment of his property as required under Section 21, Cr. P.C.