Knox and Aikman, JJ.
1. Musammat Subhudra, the appellant in this case, is a Hindu woman, the wife of one Basdeo Dube, the respondent. She obtained from the Magistrate two orders, one dated the 14th of March 1893, and the other the 23rd of November 1893, declaring herself and a child entitled to maintenance from Basdeo Dube. That order in due course came before this Court sitting as a Court of Criminal Revision, and was upheld. The respondent after that brought a suit in the Civil Court setting out as his cause of action the orders of the Magistrate, and praying that it might be declared that the appellant was a woman of loose character and outcasted; that the child born of her was not begotten of the respondent; that Musammat Subhudra be declared to have no right of maintenance; and lastly, that it be declared that there is now no relationship of husband and wife between the parties.
2. These reliefs are not reliefs which a Civil Court can grant, especially under the circumstances of the present case. What the respondent seeks to do is to set aside the maintenance orders passed by the Magistrate, who had full jurisdiction to pass them, and to declare that they are of no force.
3. The matter is not one that has not been before the Courts. In Subad Domni v. Katiraur Dome 20 W.R.C.R. 58, Pontifex, J., on a reference made by a Magistrate before whom a decree was produced of a Civil Court, to the effect that the woman in whose favour maintenance had been ordered, was not entitled to such maintenance, held as follows: 'Upon this reference, we are of opinion that the decree of the Civil Court cannot affect the order of the Magistrate, even if the Civil Court had jurisdiction, which it has not, to make a declaratory order as to the paternity of the child in question.'
4. We decree the appeal, set aside the decree of the Lower Appellate Court, and, though we do not agree with the reasons given by the learned Munsif, we restore his decree dismissing the suit with costs.
5. The appellant will have her costs in all Courts.