( 1 ) THIS petition is filed bv Basavanappa the husband of the respondent as against the orders psssed by the IT Additional Munsiflf and. JMFC. Second Court Dharwar in Misc. Case No. 58 of 1970 and confirmed bv the Sessions Judge, Dharwar in Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 1971.

( 2 ) THE few facts necessary for decision in this case may be narrated briefly as follows: the respondent Parvatavva filed LC. Suit No. 155 of 1959 against the petitioner Basavanappa her husband in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dharwar, praying for a decree towards maintenance. That suit was contested and a decree was passed. The learned Civil Judge, directed that the respondent was entitled to Rs. 200 per year towards her maintenance from her husband Basavannappa, the petitioner Then the respondent filed Misc. Case No. 58 of 1970 in the Court of the II Addl. Munsiff and JMFC. , Dharwar. under S. 488 Crpc. making out a case that her husband the petitioner Basavannappa had neglected her and had refused to maintain her. She claimed maintenance from him. The petitioner contested the claim on the ground that there was already a decree passed against him in LC. Suit No. 155/1959 and therefore the respondent was not entitled to proceed with an application under S. 488 Crpc. He also contended that the claim made by the respondent-wife at Rs. 200 per month was highly excessive as his income was not Rs. 12,000 per year as alleged by her.

( 3 ) IT has been urged in both the Courts below that existence of the decree in LC. Suit No. 155 of 1959 operates as a bar to entertain applications under S. 488 Crpc. The same point is canvassed before me by Shri b. V. Deshpande learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. But there is a catena of decisions of Bombay High Court, Calcutta High court, Punjab High Court and Madras High Court holding that existence of a decree passed by a Civil Court for maintenance of a wife is no bar for a proceeding under S. 488 Crpc. S 488 Crpc. does not lay down that jurisdiction of a Criminal Court would be barred in case there already existed a decree passed by a competent Civil Court in regard to maintenance of a wife. Therefore it is seen that if the conditions mentioned in s. 488 Crpc. are established a wife is entitled to an order of maintenance under that provision in spite of a decree having been passed in her favour previously by a Civil Court. There can be no doubt that this question whether a decree of Civil Court would bar an action under S. 488 Crpc. would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. When a finding as to the status of the partiete has been pronounced by a Civil Court, that would be conclusive in a proceeding under S. 488 Crpc. In the case on hand the finding that Paravatavva the respondent is the wife of Basavanappaa the petitioner has been already recorded by the Civil Court in lc. Suit No. 155 of 1959.

( 4 ) IN Mohommed Ali Mitliabai in re, AIR. 1930 Bom. 144. , it has been held that a mere decree of a Civil Court awarding maintenance is no bar for proceeding under S. 488 Crpc. The same is the view expressed by the Bombay high Court in re: Taralakshmi Manuprasad, AIR. 1938 Bom. 499. . The judgment is pronounced by a Bench consisting of Beaumont CJ. and Sen, J. Beaumont, cj. speaking for the Bench has specifically laid down therein that decree of the Civil Court for maintenance does not oust the jurisdiction of a magistrate to make an order under S. 488 Crpc.

( 5 ) IN Saraswati Debt v. Narayam Das, AIR. 1932 Cal. 689. it is pronounced that jurisdition under S. 488 Crpc. is not ousted by a previous agreement between husband and wife in regard to maintenance. The Punjab High Court in gurdial Singh v. Jang Singh, AIR, 1959 Pun. 185,has held that a previous compromise between the parties in regard to maintenance does not oust the jurisdiction of a Magistrate in awarding maintenance by exercising his powers under section 488 Crpc.

( 6 ) MANY of these above cited decisions

Click Here to Read the rest of this document