The validity of an order under Section 488 Cr. P. C. based on a compromise, the retrospective effect of an order under Section 489 Cr. P. C., and the Magistrate's authority to award costs and determine the maintenance rate based on the petitioner's income and family circumstances.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has come up in revision against the order of the learned City Magistrate, bangalore, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 393 of 1957, wherein he enhanced the maintenance to be paid by the petitioner from Rs. 8/- to Rs. 50/- per month.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions advanced from the Bar, it is necessary to state the facts of the case briefly.

( 3 ) THE petitioner married the respondent in about 1913. Later he took a second wife. The respondent filed an application under Section 488 Cr. P. C. , as per Cr. Mis. No. 157 of 1938-39 on the file of the learned City Magistrate, Bangalore, claiming maintenance from the petitioner on the ground that he has neglected and refused to maintain her. In the course of the enquiry of the said petition, the parties represented to the Court that they had agreed that the petitioner should pay to the respondent maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month till his retirement from service and at the rate of Rs. 8/- per month after his retirement. An order under Section 488 Cr. P. C. was accordingly passed. The petitioner has been paying the respondent at that rate. Now the respondent has come up with an application under Section 489 cr. P. C. alleging that there has been considerable change of circumstances and hence the rate at which the maintenance had been granted to her should be enhanced. She alleged that the petitioner has now acquired large properties from which he is getting considerable income. It is also alleged that he is having extensive private practice. At the same time it is urged that the respondent who was depending on her father has now been deprived of that assistance in view of the death of her father. Even her sister who was assisting her is not in a position to do so at present. The learned Magistrate, who went into the matter has been pleased to enhance the rate of maintenance from Rs. 8/- to Rs. 40/- per month. He has also directed the petitioner to pay the respondent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month for her medical and clothing expenses. It would he correct to say that he has altered the rate of maintenance from Rs. 8/- to Rs. 50/- per month. He has further directed that the altered rate should be effective from the date of the application of the respondent. Further the petitioner has been directed to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 258. 00 np. as costs.

( 4 ) THE petitioner challenges the validity and correctness of this order on several grounds. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that Section 489 is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. The argument is developed in the following manner : Before an order can be passed under section 489 Cr. P. C. there must be a valid order under Section 488 Cr. P. C. In the present case the order passed under Section 488 Cr. P. C. is not a valid order as the same was founded on a compromise. Hence there could be no order under Section 489 Cr. P. C. It is further contended that the learned magistrate had no jurisdiction to give retrospective effect to his order; nor has he jurisdiction to award costs. The quantum granted by the Magistrate is also disputed, I shall examine these contentions one by one.

( 5 ) THE plea that the order passed in Cr. Mis. Case No. 157/38-39 is not a valid order, is based on the ground that the same was passed on the basis of a compromise. It is urged that there could be no compromise in an application under Section 488 Cr. P. C. The moment the parties compromise the dispute, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to try the proceedings is ousted. For this position, reliance is placed on the decision reported in Sham Singh v. Hakam Devi, AIR 1930 Lah 524 (A ). In the said case his Lordship Addison J. observed that "where in an application under Section 488 Cr. P. C. the parties arrive at a compromise the proper course for the Court is to dismiss the application leaving the parties to enforce the compromise in civil Courts. Such a compromise is a bar to an appli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document