Skip to content


Netram Asaram Vs. Mt. Rajju Bai and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1950CriLJ166
AppellantNetram Asaram
RespondentMt. Rajju Bai and anr.
Excerpt:
- - at any rate, the learned magistrate gave good reasons for holding that rajjubai and shakuntala had not received anything by way of maintenance from the applicant since december 1946. the learned magistrate also gave good reasons for holding that the claim for separate maintenance was justified and also for holding that the proper amounts were usection 10 and ra......criminal court under section 488, criminal p.c. and that anything short of a decree entitling the wife to maintenance is not sufficient to oust such jurisdiction. the learned judge in that case followed the rule in p.c. kent v. e. e. l. kent, 49 mad. 891 : a. i. r 1926 mad. 59 in which the following observations were made:the existence of the order 'directing payment of maintenance' ia not sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the magistrate, for a mere order of maintenance is not equivalent to maintaining the wife; and the order whatever may be its force, or nature, cannot take away tie magistrate's jurisdiction be long as the husband neglects or refuses to maintain the wife.4. here too it would appear that the applicant net ram had neglected to make payment finical august-september.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Hemeon, J.

1. Rajjubai and her minor daughter Skakuntala were awarded Under Section 10 and Rs. 3 respectively as maintenance from the applicant Nacre by the First Class Magistrate, Dmdori; and in revision the District Magistrate, Mandla sent back the case for further evidence regarding the quantum of maintenance. The same rates of maintenance were fixed by the first Court and the District Magistrate rejected the application for revision of that order. The applicant has now come up in revision to this Court.

2. Bajjubai had sought a maintenance order in the civil Courts, but the case was compromised and under the deed of compromise, Ex. P-l, dated 7th September 1945, Netram agreed to pay her Ea. 6 per mensem as maintenance so long as she did not remarry and bahaved according to his directions. Since Bhadon (August-September) 1946, however, he had ceased paying it.

3. The main contention raised in the applicant's behalf was to the effect that as the parties had entered into an agreement, the only remedy Open to Rajjubai and Shakuntala was to file a suit to enforce the agreement. There wag, however, mo decree in the civil suit and it would appear that the plaint was withdrawn. In Saraswati Delee v. Narayandas Chatter ji, 59 Cal 1229 : AIR1932Cal698 Mitter J. held that an agreement between the husband and the wife enforceable in a civil Court, by which the husband agrees to pay the wife a specific sum per month, does not oust the jurisdiction of the criminal Court Under Section 488, Criminal P.C. and that anything short of a decree entitling the wife to maintenance is not sufficient to oust such jurisdiction. The learned Judge in that case followed the rule in P.C. Kent v. E. E. L. Kent, 49 Mad. 891 : A. I. R 1926 Mad. 59 in which the following observations were made:

The existence of the order 'directing payment of maintenance' ia not sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, for a mere order of maintenance is not equivalent to maintaining the wife; and the order whatever may be its force, or nature, cannot take away tie Magistrate's jurisdiction be long as the husband neglects or refuses to maintain the wife.

4. Here too it would appear that the applicant Net ram had neglected to make payment finical August-September 1946 for the maintenance of Rajjubai and their daughter Shakuntala. At any rate, the learned Magistrate gave good reasons for holding that Rajjubai and Shakuntala had not received anything by way of maintenance from the applicant since December 1946. The learned Magistrate also gave good reasons for holding that the claim for separate maintenance was justified and also for holding that the proper amounts were uSection 10 and Ra. 3 for Rajjubai and Shakuntala respectively, regard being had to the applicant's financial position. In fact, the amounts in question cannot be said to be in any way large in view of the cost of living at the present time.

5. This application is accordingly dismissed..


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //