Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.

1. The order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Tuticorin, dated 23rd March, 1924, directing the execution of the order for maintenance was clearly wrong and should be set aside. The counter-petitioner before the Magistrate, who is the petitioner before me, filed a counter-petition presumably under Sub-clause (3) to Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code setting out certain grounds on which he contended that the order should not be executed. The words in Sub-clause (3) of the section as now amended are, "If any person so ordered fails, without sufficient cause to comply with the order, etc." These words clearly contemplate a counter-petitioner in such circumstances coming into Court when execution of the order is applied for and showing cause why it should not be executed. The Court is then bound to consider the sufficiency of the cause alleged by the counter-petitioner and to refuse the execution if the Court should be satisfied that the cause is sufficient and to grant execution if the Court is not satisfied with the cause alleged. It is contended by the learned vakil for the respondent that having regard to the terms of Sub-clause (5) to Section 4