BAKSHI NONIHAL Vs. RAM LUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application directed against the order of the Sessions Judge dismissing the application of Bk. Nonihal petitioner against the order of the City Magistrate, Jammu dated 16th Chet 2008.

(2.) THE facts which gave rise to this application briefly are these. On 4th Sawan 2006 Mst. Ram Lubhai applied in the Court of City Magistrate, Jammu for the grant of maintenance allowance for herself and for her daughter Mst. Shakuntala. The City Magistrate by his order dated 9th Jeth 2007 granted Rs. 50/- as maintenance allowance to Mst. Ram Lubhai and her daughter Mst. Shakuntala, against Bk. Nonihal the husband of Mst. Ram Lubhai. He came up in revision before the Sessions Judge but was unsuccessful. He came up in further revision to this Court and on 21st Baisakh 2008 the parties entered into a compromise by virtue of which Bk. Nonihal agreed to pay Rs. 25 to his wife, as maintenance allowance. He further stipulated that he will go on paying Rs. 20 to his daughter for a period of six months within which he would arrange to get his daughter married and will incur all the marriage expenses himself. On the basis of this compromise an order was passed by this Court modifying the order passed by the trial Court in terms of the statement made by the applicant. On 8th Sawan 2008, an application was made by Mst. Ram Lubhai and her daughter claiming maintenance allowance from 4th Sawan 2006 to 4th Sawan 2008. A notice was issued to Bk. Nonihal and he filed objections to the application made for the recovery of the arrears of maintenance allowance. The main objections taken by Bk. Nonihal are that he was not liable to pay maintenance allowance prior to the order passed by the High Court and that he had to pay maintenance to his daughter only for six months from the date of the High Court order. These objections were overruled by the executing Court of City Magistrate and he allowed Mst. Ram Lubhai and her daughter maintenance allowance from the date the maintenance allowance was granted by the City Magistrate and subsequently notified by the High Court. Against this order Bk. Nonihal went up in revision to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jammu but was unsuccessful. He has come up in further revision to this Court.

(3.) THE first question for consideration is whether or not the applicant had opportunity to raise all the objections he wanted to take before the City Magistrate. From the perusal of the interlocutory orders it is abundantly clear that the case came up before the City Magistrate for a number of times. The counsel for the applicant had not put in any other objection except those which he took during the first hearings of the case. He had not asked for any opportunity for adducing any evidence to show that he had sufficient cause for nonpayment of the arrears of maintenance allowance. The objection now taken by the learned counsel that he was not afforded opportunity to put in objections against the claim of maintenance allowance is without any force.