JUDGMENT - MANE A.D., J.:—This criminal revision application has been placed before us on a reference made in that behalf by the learned Single Judge of this Court for decision on the question as to the procedure and interpretation of sub-section (3) of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The material facts which gave rise to the filing of the revision application by the petitioner husband are as follows:

The wife filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') claiming maintenance allowance for self and for and on behalf of her minor daughter against the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kirkee, Pune, by order dated July 6, 1987, granted maintenance only to the minor daughter at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month and rejected the wife's application for maintenance allowance on the ground that she was not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner for she married him when his first marriage was subsisting. The wife, however, filed revision application before the Sessions Court, Pune, and prayed for setting aside the order of the trial Magistrate rejecting her claim and also for enhancement of quantum of the monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month for self and Rs. 200/- per month for her daughter. By order dated October 21, 1988 the Sessions Court allowed the revision application of the wife and granted maintenance to the wife and her daughter at the enhanced rate of Rs. 250/- per month and Rs. 200/- per month respectively.

3. Thereafter, on failure of the petitioner to comply with the order granting maintenance allowance to the wife and the daughter, an application was filed on March 12, 1989 by the wife for recovery of the amount of maintenance allowance. That application was opposed by the petitioner husband. It appears that the said application was, however, transferred to the Family Court on its constituting and establishing at Pune.

4. The learned Judge of the Family Court, by his order dated March 12, 1989, first issued a distress warrant against the petitioner husband for recovery of Rs. 26,000/- being the amount of arrears of monthly maintenance allowance. The distress warrant was made returnable on April 2, 1989. The warrant was not served by the police nor the petitioner remained present before the learned Judge of the Family Court on the returnable date. The learned Judge of the Family Court, by his order dated April 2, 1989, issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner with the condition that the petitioner be released if he pays Rs. 26,000/-.

5. Being aggrieved by the orders dated March 12, 1989 and April 2, 1989, the petitioner husband filed this revision application and it came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge of this Court on August 23, 1990.

6. In order to appreciate the question which requires our consideration, it becomes necessary to mention the circumstances which led to place this matter before the Division Bench. During the hearing of the revision application before the learned Single Judge, one of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that in view of the decision in the case of (Abdul Ajij Puddan Ansari v. Jubedabai and others)1, 1982(1) Bom.C.R. 504, the petitioner's husband is entitled to reagitate before the Executing Court in execution proceedings that the wife is not the legally wedded wife and, therefore, not entitled to maintenance. It was also sought to be contended that the husband is also entitled to show that he is not liable to pay maintenance as it would cover the expression, “sufficient cause” as appearing in sub-section (3) of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, if the husband is able to show even in the execution proceeding that the wife seeking execution is not his legally wedded wife, he can be considered to have shown sufficient cause so as to decline to proceed further in the execution proceedings. On the other han

Click Here to Read the rest of this document