SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(Ori) 45

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
G. K. Misra, J.
JAGANNATH PATRA - Appellant
Versus
PURNAMASHI SARAF - Respondent
Criminal Ref.  31  Of  1966
Decided On : JULY 12, 1967

Advocates Appeared:
G.RATH, Y.MISHRA

The court emphasized the sequential process of recovery of arrears under Section 488 (3) of Cr. P. C. and highlighted the limitation period of one year for recovery of arrears.

Headnote:

Maintenance - Recovery of Arrears - Interpretation of Section 488 Cr. P. C.

Fact of the Case:

Purnamasi Saraf and Abhimanyu Saraf, minors, obtained a maintenance order against Jagannath Patra. They sought recovery of arrears for a specific period. The Magistrate issued a warrant for attachment of properties and the body of Jagannath.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the simultaneous issuance of warrant of attachment and body warrant was not in accordance with the law. It directed the Magistrate to first issue a warrant of attachment for recovery of arrears preceding the date of application and only then consider a body warrant if the arrears remained unpaid.

Issues: Interpretation of Section 488 (3) of Cr. P. C., legality of simultaneous issuance of warrants, and the limitation period for recovery of arrears.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 488 (3) and emphasized that the warrant of attachment should precede the body warrant for recovery of arrears. It also highlighted the limitation period of one year for recovery of arrears.

Final Decision: The court accepted the reference, set aside the Magistrate's order, and directed the Magistrate to dispose of the case in accordance with the law and the court's observations, emphasizing prompt disposal due to the long delay.

G. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) PURNAMASI Saraf and Abhimanyu Saraf, aged 11 and 9 years respectively, got an order of maintenance on 15-10-63 Under Section 488 Cr. P. C. against jagannath Patra. A revision against that order was dismissed by this Court in 1964. The minors filed an application Under Section 488 (3), Cr. P. C. for recovery of the arrears for the period from 5-10-63 to 5-4-65. The learned Magistrate issued a warrant for attachment of movable and immovable properties and of the body of Jagannath, Against this order Jagannath filed a revision before the learned sessions Judge at Bolangir who has made two recommendations thus - (i) That the issue of warrant of arrest before the warrant of attachment and sale of the properties failed to satisfy the arrears was illegal; and (ii) An amount for more than one year was not recoverable.

( 2 ) SECTION 488 (3) lays down that if any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in manner hereinbefore provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month's allowance remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made. It would thus be apparent that in the first instance warrant of attachment of the movable and immovable properties would be issued, the properties would be sold and applied for discharge of the arrear dues, and if on such steps being taken the arrear amount still remains unpaid, it is open to the Magistrate to issue a body warrant and not until then. The order of the learned Magistrate issuing simultaneously warrant of attachment and body warrant is not in accordance with law

( 3 ) THE second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 488, Cr. P. C. enacts that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due Thus the period of limitation is one year Any arrear fallinp beyond one year is barred by limitation.

( 4 ) ON the aforesaid analysis, the case must go back to the learned Magistrate. He would in the first instance issue warrant of attachment of the properties for recovery of arrears of maintenance for a period of one year preceding the date of application. If the properties attached and sold do not satisfy the arrears due, it is open to the learned Magistrate to issue a body warrant. (5) The reference is accepted. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 14-10-65 is set aside and he is directed to dispose of the case in accordance with law and the ob servations made above. The case has been long delayed. The Magistrate is directed to dispose it of as early as possible.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top