Skip to content


Danda Chenchaiah Vs. Danda Mangamma and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1969CriLJ684
AppellantDanda Chenchaiah
RespondentDanda Mangamma and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....rights is pending in the court of the subordinate judge, kavali, and that section 24 of the hindu marriage act provides for the award of maintenance during the pendency of those proceedings and hence the application under section 488, cr.p.c. is not maintainable, at any rate until the disposal of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. i am unable to agree with this contention.2. the object of section 488, cr.p.c. is the prevention of vagrancy and to provide neglected wives and children a cheap and speedy remedy. this remedy is irrespective of other remedies such neglected wives and children may have under their personal law or under any statute. the existence of other more efficacious remedy is no bar to the maintainability of a petition under section 488, cr.p.c......
Judgment:
ORDER

Chinnappa Reddy, J.

1. This is a petition to revise the-order of the learned Judicial First Class-Magistrate, Darsi, under Section 488, Cr.P.C. awarding maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 40 per month. The main argument of Sri Venkatarama Sastry, the-learned Advocate for the petitioner-respondent, is that his petition for restitution of conjugal rights is pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kavali, and that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for the award of maintenance during the pendency of those proceedings and hence the application under Section 488, Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, at any rate until the disposal of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. I am unable to agree with this contention.

2. The object of Section 488, Cr.P.C. is the prevention of vagrancy and to provide neglected wives and children a cheap and speedy remedy. This remedy is irrespective of other remedies such neglected wives and children may have under their personal law or under any statute. The existence of other more efficacious remedy is no bar to the maintainability of a petition under Section 488, Cr.P.C. Indeed, it is irrelevant. Similarly, the pendency of other proceedings where the status of the parties is in question or where a husband Seeks some matrimonial relief is no bar to the maintainability of a petition under Section 488, Cr.P.C. Nor can the proceedings under Section 488 Cr.P.C. be made to await the result of such other proceedings.

Otherwise, the object of Section 488, Cr.P.C. providing for a cheap and speedy remedy will be frustrated. However, where a competent Civil Court declares the rights of the parties, the Magistrate passing an order under Section 488, Cr.P.C. is empowered to cancel or suitably vary the order. This is provided under Section 489(2), Cr.P.C. and this provision amply protects the rights of the parties as may ultimately be determined by the Civil Courts.

3. Mr. Venkatarama Sastry contends that Section 488, Cr.P.C. is inconsistent with Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore, by virtue of Section 4(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 24 of the Act must prevail over Section 488, Cr.P.C. I am unable to find any inconsistency between the two provisions. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act as does Section 488, Cr.P.C. provides for the award of maintenance and does not relieve the husband from his duty to maintain the wife or children during the pendency of proceedings in which their status is in question, or other proceedings where the matrimonial reliefs are claimed. The petition is, therefore, rejected.


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