Karnataka High Court
Judges : Ahmed Ali Khan
STATE OF MYSORE - Appellant
Versus
NAGAPPA - Respondent
Cri. Revn. Case 58 Of 1966
Decided On : 06/13/1967
Maintenance - Criminal Procedure - The court considered the effect of a civil court decree on a previous order of maintenance under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The discretion under section 489(2) is limited to considering the consequence of the civil court decision on the maintenance order under section 488.
Fact of the Case:
Gowramma obtained an order of maintenance under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month and subsequently obtained a decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month from the civil court. She then filed an application for enforcement of the original maintenance order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the civil court decree should be considered in determining the maintenance order under section 488. The criminal court should give effect to the civil court decree and alter or vary the original maintenance order accordingly.
Issues: The issue was whether the civil court decree should impact the original maintenance order under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under section 489(2), the magistrate should consider the consequence of the civil court decision on the maintenance order under section 488 and should give effect to the civil court decree by altering or varying the original maintenance order.
Final Decision: The reference made by the Sessions Judge was accepted, and the court disposed of the case accordingly, allowing the application for maintenance till a certain date and denying maintenance for the period subsequent to the civil court decree.
( 2 ) IT is not disputed that an order for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month had been made under S. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of Gowramma had subsequently obtained a decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month from the civil court of competent jurisdiction on 30th March, 1966. In view of the decree obtained by Gowramma from the Civil Court Respondent No. 1 filed objections before the Magistrate and prayed for the cancellation of the order made in favour of Gowramma under Section 489 (2) of the Code of criminal Procedure.
( 3 ) UNDER Section 489 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate can vary or alter the order of maintenance if the circumstances so required. When it is brought to his notice that a decree for maintenance has been passed by the Civil Court it is the duty of the Court to consider whether that decision of the Civil Court leads to the consequence that the order passed by the criminal court under section 488 should be canceled or varied. There is no question of the Magistrate considering whether the decision of the civil court has altered the circumstances of the case. For the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 489 of the code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate should take the decision as it stands and consider the effect of if upon the order passed by the Criminal Court under section 488 Cr. P. C. If the consequence is that it should be varied or cancelled, effect must be given to it by cancelling or varying the order made under section 488, Cr. P. C. The discretion that is given under section 489 (2) is only for this limited purpose.
( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that a decree for maintenance at Rs. 40/- per month has been obtained by gowramma from the civil court of competent jurisdiction on 30th March 1966. therefore the criminal court should give effect to that decree and alter or vary the order made under section 488 according to law By the order of the Criminal Court which has been made on 23rd March, 1964, maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month had been awarded to her. The effect of the decree of the civil court is that she cannot be held entitled to any maintenance in pursuance of the order made by the criminal court under section 488 of the Code of Criminal procedure after 29th March 1966. She has claimed maintenance for the months of February, march and April 1966. By the order of the Criminal Court she would be entitled to maintenance till 30th March 1966. Therefore her application under S. 488 (3) can be allowed accordingly. She, however, cannot be held entitled to any maintenance in pursuance of the order of the criminal Court for the period subsequent to 29th March 1966. Subject to the above modification the reference made by the Sessions Judge is accepted and the same i
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.