An order for maintenance remains in force until cancelled, and the husband can challenge further payment by filing an application under Sub-section (5), Section 488, Criminal P. C.

Curgenven, J.

1. In 1907 the respondent in this case obtained an order under Section 488, Criminal P. C., against her husband, the present petitioner, for the payment of a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 6. It appears that she remained away from him until 1910 and that from that year until 1924 the parties lived together. After leaving her husband again in the latter year she filed an application for arrears of maintenance. The order which the learned Third Presidency Magistrate passed on that application on 14th July 1926 runs thus:

The order of 1907 cancelled itself when the petitioner rejoined counter-petitioner. It cannot be enforced now. The application is dismissed.

2. I had occasion to hold recently in Kavagammal v. Pandara Nadar A. I. R. 1927 Mad. 376 that an order for maintenance once passed, remained in force until it was cancelled, notwithstanding that the applicant might have returned in the meanwhile to live with her husband, and that it was the business of the husband to get the order cancelled. Upon that view it appears to me that the order just quoted is not correct and that the maintenance order was still in force. Very soon afterwards it appears that another application was made for current maintenance and it came up before the learned Second Presidency Magistrate who, in the presence of the parties, passed an order that the counter-petitioner (now the petitioner) should pay Rs. 6 per month as before. It is contended that the counter-petitioner there was not heard in contest of this order and accordingly an application is made to have it set aside in revision. But on the view I take, namely, that the original order was still in force, I think the Courts order may be taken as made in execution of that order and accordingly it was competent, without further enquiry, to direct payment until the order had been cancelled. There is, therefore, no need to interfere with that order, and, clearly, the petitioners correct course, if he is now advised to challenge the propriety of any further payment, would be to file an application under Sub-section (5), Section 488, Criminal P. C., alleging one or other of the grounds therein specified for cancelling an order of maintenance. If he does this, the Court will of course make an enquiry into his allegations, and if necessary cancel the order of maintenance.

3. With these observations I dismiss the revision petition. No order as to costs.