ISHWAR SINGH Vs. RAM PIARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order recorded by our learned brother Mr. Justice Lal sitting singly in C. M. P. (M) No. 26 of the 1973 on 30-11-1973. A preliminary objection is raised on behalf of the respondent No. 1 by her learned Advocate Shri Sud, that this Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated 21-3-1919. It is an admitted position that these Letters Patent of the Lahore High Court are applicable to the procedure adopted by this Court also.

(2.) Following are the short facts which constitute the background of this appeal. The respondent No. 1 Ram Piari is the wife of the present appellant Ishwar Singh and she filed an application for maintenance under Section 488 of the Cr. P. C. of 1898. The respondent No. 1 was awarded maintenance in the amount of Rs. 75/- per month. The said order was originally passed by the concerned Nayay Panchayat. Against that order an appeal was preferred to the Full Bench of the Nayay Panchayat but the same was also dismissed on 18-8-1970. Against that order a revision application was preferred to the Divisional Magistrate, Rahru. The appellant failed even in that revision application with the result that the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge who decided this application under Article 227 of the Constitution dismissed the petition and confirmed the order of maintenance after deciding various contentions which were raised on behalf of the present appellant before him. It is against this order passed by the learned single Judge that the present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred.

(3.) The preliminary objection which is raised by Shri Sud is twofold viz. (1) According to him the learned single Judge has exercised his jurisdiction in a criminal matter and since appeal arising out of the orders passed in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction is specifically except-ed by Clause 10 of the Latters Patent, this appeal cannot lie. (2) At any rate, even if it is believed that the learned single Judge has not exercised any criminal jurisdiction under Article 227, he has obviously passed an order in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution and, therefore, also Letters Patent Appeal against that order is barred by Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.