GOVIND SAHAI Vs. PREM DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by Govind Sahai under S.482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malpura issuing a warrant to the employer of the petitioner for deducting an amount of Rs. 500/- from the salary of the petitioner every month and to remit the same to the Court and also further to deduct an amount of maintenance amounting to Rs. 10,000/-and also to remit this instalment amount to the Court.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that Smt. Prem Devi non-petitioner filed an application for grant of maintenance under S. 125, Cr.P.C. on Mar. 21, 1984 before the Judicial Magistrate Malpura. Ultimately the Judicial Magistrate by his order dated Nov. 22, 1984 allowed an amount of Rs. 300/- as maintenance for Smt. Prem Devi and Rs. 20 per month for her daughter. The petitioner had filed application under S.482, Cr.P.C. before this Court against the said order which was dismissed on April 18, 1985. On Dec. 12, 1985 Prem Devi non-petitioner made an application under S.125(3), Cr.P.C. for issuing a warrant for levying an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as arrears of maintenance which had fallen due with effect from Mar. 21, 1984 i.e. the date on which the application was filed, to the date of making the subsequent application under S. 125(3) and also to recover the monthly maintenance allowances of Rs. 500/-. The petitioner is an employee of M/s. Hindustan Aluminium Company, Renukoot. The Judicial Magistrate, Malpura issued notice to the petitioner which was not received back after service. Thereafter he sent a notice by registered post. Neither the petitioner appeared before the Magistrate nor the acknowledgment receipt was received back. Ultimately on Feb. 5, 1986 the Judicial Magistrate ordered for the issue of a warrant addressed to the Chairman M/s. Hindustan Aluminium Company, Renukoot requiring him to deduct an amount of Rs. 500/- from the salary of the petitioner and to remit the said amount to the Court. With regard to arrears of maintenance allowance amounting to Rs. 10,000/- for the period from Mar. 21, 1984 to Dec. 12, 1985 it was directed in the warrant that the Chairman should remit this amount by deducting an amount of Rs. 500/-per month as instalment and remit the same to his Court. It is against this order that Govind Sahai petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) I have heard Shri Rajkumar Pareek and Shri D. L. Bardhar, learned counsel appearing for the parties.