1. The petitioners before us have been convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, and one of them has also been fined, under Sections 186, 323 and 353, Indian Penal Code, or one or more of these sections. This Rule was issued on the District Magistrate to show cause why the convictions and sentences should not be set aside on the ground that the warrant was illegal, in that it was not shown that Ayesha Khatun had an opportunity of obeying the decree and wilfully failed to obey it. The only point, therefore, which has been argued before us is whether Ayesha Khatun, the lady mentioned in the Rule, had an opportunity or a sufficient opportunity to obey the decree. The decree was a decree obtained against her by her husband for restitution of conjugal rights. It was made on the 3rd March 1917. The warrant in question was not issued till the 15th September 1917. The decree directed that the lady should return to her husband within three months of its date. It is not suggested that the lady had no knowledge of the terms of the decree. The suit was a contested suit and no such suggestion could be successfully made in the circumstances. In my opinion, on the facts stated, there is no ground for saying that the lady had no sufficient opportunity to obey the decree. The learned Pleader who appears for the petitioners contended that the lady was entitled to notice before the warrant was issued. That proposition, however, cannot be supported in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Durga Das Nandi v. Dewaraj Agarwala 33 C. 306 : 3 C.L.J. 112 : 10 C.W.N. 297.
2. In my opinion, the Rule must be discharged. Those of the petitioners who were released on bail must surrender to their bail and undergo the remainder of their sentences.
Syed Shamsul Huda, J.
2. I agree.