GUPTESHWAR PANDEY Vs. RAM PEARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a husband's application arising in a proceeding under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The opposite party, Smt. Ram Peari Devi filed an application under Section 488(1) of the Code before the Subdivisional Magistrate at Arrah on the 27th April, 1959. That application, after contest, was allowed on the 5th of December, 1960 and it was directed that the petitioner must pay a sum of Rs. 75/- per month to the opposite party on account of her maintenance with effect from the date of her application, namely, the 27th April, 1959. Against the said order, the petitioner moved the sessions court in revision but the revision was summarily rejected by the Sessions Judge on the 17th of January, 1961. Thereafter on the 10th May, 1961, the opposite party filed an application for realisation of a sum of Rs. 1800/- from the petitioner in pursuance of the order passed in her favour on the 5th December, 1960. Notice of this application having not been served on the petitioner in the ordinary course, an order for issue of distress warrant was passed against him on the 17th August, 1961. This was followed by an order of attachment of the joint family properties of the petitioner which was passed on the 25th June, 1962. But on the 24th July, 1962 the father and the brothers of the petitioner appeared before the Subdivisional Magistrate with a prayer for release of the joint family properties from attachment. The said petition was rejected on the 30th July, 1962, whereupon the father and the brothers of the petitioner moved the Sessions Judge for a reference to this Court. Accordingly, a reference was made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and it was registered in this Court as Criminal Reference No. 15 of 1963. On the 8th August, 1963, the reference was accepted by this Court, the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate dated the 30th July, 1962 was set aside and it was held that the joint family properties of the petitioner could not be proceeded against in the proceeding under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) After the record of the case was returned by this Court to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, the petitioner appeared before him and filed a petition in which he prayed that the proceeding which was being taken against him should be dropped on the ground that he had no property or any source of income of his own. No order, one way or the other, was passed upon this petition of the 2nd January, 1964, but on the 17th February, 1964, the Sub-divisional Magistrate passed an order for attachment of certain properties which were alleged, on behalf of the opposite party to be the separate property of the petitioner. Nearly four years elapsed thereafter without any tangible result and on the 27th January, 1968, an execution report was received from the police to the effect that the petitioner was not in possession of any separate property. Thereupon the Sub-divisional Magistrate took the view that there was no alternative left except to issue a warrant of arrest against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 488(3) of the Code. Even thereafter for several dates the execution report of the warrant of arrest was not received in court. Ultimately on the 27th June, 1968, the Sub-divisional Magistrate recorded the following order:--