Skip to content


Chukkala Mangayyamma Vs. Chukkala Appalaswami - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1931)60MLJ213
AppellantChukkala Mangayyamma
RespondentChukkala Appalaswami
Cases Referred and Sham Singh v. Hakam Devi A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- .....the order of the sub-divisional magistrate of vizagapatam in an application under section 488, criminal procedure code, by a wife for enforcement of the order of the maintenance which she had received from that court. the; learned magistrate has refused to pass any such order for reasons which it is not easy to follow. he says that the original order is based on a compromise, that therefore section 488, criminal procedure code, has no longer any application and that the proper remedy for the petitioner is by way of civil courts, of course if the parties had settled the dispute by themselves without any reference to the court, there would have been no order under section 488, criminal procedure code, at all; but such settlement is evidently not what they contemplated. the husband was.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Jackson, J.

1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Vizagapatam in an application under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, by a wife for enforcement of the order of the maintenance which she had received from that Court. The; learned Magistrate has refused to pass any such order for reasons which it is not easy to follow. He says that the original order is based on a compromise, that therefore Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, has no longer any application and that the proper remedy for the petitioner is by way of Civil Courts, Of course if the parties had settled the dispute by themselves without any reference to the Court, there would have been no order under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, at all; but such settlement is evidently not what they contemplated. The husband was prepared to consent to judgment without giving the petitioner any further trouble so long as her claim for maintenance was reasonable and therefore the Magistrate passed orders in the terms of this agreement or compromise, a very sensible arrangement which did not in any way detract from the force of the order. In two cases from Lahore, Budhu Ram v. Khem Devi A.I.R. 1926 Lah. 469 and Sham Singh v. Hakam Devi A.I.R. 1930 Lah. 524, it is held that a compromise cannot be enforced under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, and if these cases refer to a compromise of which an essential part is the passing of an order under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, I must respectfully differ from them. If the compromise is entirely independent of the Court, I agree that the Court would be under no necessity to pass an order under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. The view of the matter which I have endeavoured to set forth is I think succinctly put in Rangammal, In re (1902) 2 Weir 629, Cr. Rev. Case No. 41 of 1902 which is a ruling of a Bench of this Court and which finally settles the matter for this Presidency. The petition is accordingly allowed, and the application is remanded to the Sub-divisional Magistrate for disposal according to law after hearing the parties, if necessary.


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