LAWS(RAJ)-1991-4-48

GANGA RAM Vs. JAKALI

Decided On April 10, 1991
GANGA RAM Appellant
V/S
JAKALI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar dated 2 1-3-1987 whereby he uphold the order pased by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Nohar, dated 7-10-1986.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that by the order dated 15-12-1983, the learned Magistrate ordered to grant maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month to the non-petitioner Smt. Jakali from the date of the application i.e. from 1-61981, which was maintained, in revision filed by the petitioner Ganga Ram by the learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 3-6-1985. Thereafter, an application was filed on 19-6-1985 by the wife Smt. Jakali for payment of arrears of maintenance from 1-6-1981 to 1-6-1985 Rs. 200/- per month, alleging that she got Rs. 200/- out of that during the months and is entitled to a sum of Rs. 9,400/- and future maintenance, otherwise in default the husband Ganga Ram may be sent to jail. In reply, the petitioner has stated that arrears from 1-6-1981 to 1-6-1984 are beyond one year as such neither the non-petitioner entitled nor the court can issue warrants for the arrears of that period. After hearing the parties, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate has rejected the objections and issued warrant of attachment to realise the amount and awarded arrears on 7-10-1986. A revision was filed but the same was dismissed. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition u/s. 482, Cr.P.C.

(3.) Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under proviso to subsection (3) of Section 125, Cr.P.C. there is clear bar and this bar is mandatory and therefore, courts below have erred in awarding maintenance for the period from 1-6-1981 to 1-6-1984 and this Court under the inherent power can quash the impugned order. He has also placed reliance on the decision of Rabari Nagjibhai Haribhai v. Bai Zaber & Ors. and Hagiri Dei & Anr. v. Budhiram Behera2.