G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) PENDING appeal, the appellant filed I. A. No. 3096/85 in A. S. No. 153/85 on the file of the Ilnd Addl. District Judge, Guntur, under Sees. 4 and 23 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and Sec. 151 CPC to pass an order of interim protection against the respondents from arresting him in execution of the order in Crl. M. P. No. 98/95, 2174/83 and 411/83 in M. C. No. 6/81 on the file of the 1st Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Tenali. The petition after contest, was dismissed with costs on 29-10-1985 holding that there are no justifiable grounds to grant protection to the petitioner from being arrested in execution of the order of granting maintenance by the Criminal Court. Against that order, the petitioner filed the present revision petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner also filed LA. No. 496/85 in I P. No. 1/85 under Secs. 4 and 93 of the Provincial Insolvency Act in the Court ot the Prl. Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, to pass an interim protection order against the respondent from arresting the petitioner in M. C. No. 6/31 and Crl. Mr. Nos. 411/83, 2174/83 and 78/85 on the file of the 1st Addl. Munsif Magistrate, tenali. That application also was dismissed on 4th September, 1985, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to seek interim protection from arrest in execution of the order in M C. No. 6/81.

( 3 ) THE admitted facts are as follows ; The petitioner gave divorce to his wife Nagamani. He had one daughter Supraja Lakshmi Rajyam through his wife Nagamani. The petitioner filed an application under the guardian and Wards Act for the custody of that minor girl. After enquiry, the Court found that the petitioner, who is the father, is not entitled to the custody of his daughter. The daughter represented by her mother, i e. the respondent filed M. C. No. 6/81 on the file of the 1st Addl. Munsif Magistrate, tenali, under Sec. Cr. P. C. After enquiry, a sum of Rs. 50/- per month was awarded. The petitioner has not paid even a single pie towards arrears of maintenance. The respondent, represented by her mother, filed crl. M. P. Nos. 411/83, 2174/83 and 78/83 for non-payment of arrears of maintenance amount before the 1st Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Tenali.

( 4 ) IT is at that stage, the petitioner filed I. P. No. 1/85 alleging that the claim of Rs. 2,300/- is a debt as per the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency act and he is not able to pay the debt mentioned in b schedule of the maintenance petition and he is entitled for protection orders from the court. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner is not a cooli and the maintenance as awarded by the Magistrate under Sec. 125 Cr. P. C. is not a debt as contemplated under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency act. It is a legal obligation to be discharged by the petitioner as a father. No protection can be granted under the provisions of the Insolvency Act for payment which is not a debt. The petitioner filed one after the other petitions and ultimately he made the respondent to move from one court to another, by spending huge amounts and so, he is not entitled for the protection.

( 5 ) THE crucial point that emerged from the admitted facts is whether the petitioner in the insolvency proceedings is entitled to protection orders from being arrested in execution of maintenance order passed by a competent court under Sec. 125 Cr. PC. A Hindu is under a legal obligation to maintain his minor or unmarried daughters. The obligation to maintain the daughter is personal in character and arises from the very existence of relationship of the parties. When the father refuses or neglects to maintain his daughter, the Court is entitled to pass an order under Section 125 Cr. P. C. The Court which passes an order under Sec. 125 Cr. P. C, does not enforce payment of any debt. The object of insolvency law is not to deprive the wife and the children of the support and maintenance due from the husband and father which it has ever been the purpose of the law to enforce.

(

Click Here to Read the rest of this document