SHRI JALHA Vs. SHRIMATI DAROPTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule in revision has been obtained by Jalha against the order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Sunder Nagar, wherein execution of an order of maintenance passed by the Nyaya Panchayat, Ghumarwin, in favour of Shrimati Daropti, has been upheld and the Petitioner Jalha has been directed to pay the arrears of maintenance and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. As evident Shrimati Daropti is a legally wedded wife of Jalha and since she and her minor child were not maintained by her husband, an application under Sec. 488 Code of Criminal Procedure was instituted on her behalf before the Nyaya Panchayat, Ghumarwin in the District of Bilaspur. The said Nyaya Panchayat awarded a decree of maintenance in her favour and Jalha was directed to pay Rs. 40 per month to the lady and her minor child with effect from 23 -12 -1961. Subsequently Jalha did not pay the amount and an application was filed before the Nyaya Panchayat for execution of the decree. The Nyaya Panchayat found some difficulty in executing the decree and as such under Sec. 97(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1952, the proceedings were submitted to the Sub -Divisional Judge, Bilaspur, for getting the decree executed. It seems that the matter remained pending before the Sub -Divisional Judge for a considerable period of time. Ultimately the Sub -Divisional Judge, Bilaspur, came to the conclusion that the judgment -debtor Jalha resided within the jurisdiction of Tehsil Sunder Nagar and as such the Sub -Divisional Judge of Mandi District was competent to entertain the application for execution. Thereafter the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, made an order of transfer of the execution case to the Court of the Sub -Divisional Judge, Sunder Nagar. Jalha was summoned to appear before that Court. He raised a plea of jurisdiction and contended that the maintenance application could not: be instituted before the Nyaya Panchayat, Ghumarwin, for the reason that Jalha resided within the jurisdiction of Tehsil Sunder Nagar for which another Nyaya Panchayat was constituted. Besides that objection, Jalha further raised a contention that Shrimati Daropti had started living with him and as such she was not entitled to claim any maintenance. The learned Sub -Divisional Judge repelled both the contentions of Jalha as according to him he could not go behind the decree and had to execute it as such. If Jalha had any objection, he could take appropriate proceedings before the Nyaya Panchayat itself. With these observations the order of execution has been upheld and Jalha has been directed to pay the arrears of maintenance and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) Jalha felt aggrieved of the decision and has come up to this Court in revision.

(3.) It is not clear why the Petitioner Jalha has not preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge who has jurisdiction for the court of the Sub -Divisional Judge, Sunder Nagar. Be it as it may, under Sec. 435 read with Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, perhaps the High Court will also have its jurisdiction for a revision and as such I do not consider it necessary to enter into this controversy.