Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires the examination of the accused, does not apply to proceedings under Section 488 of the Code, which deals with maintenance.

1. "This is a revision petition against the order of Shri Beni Parshad, Magistrate 1st Class, Zira, dated 24-10-52, allowing Rs. 30/- as monthly maintenance to Mst. Bachan Kaur against her husband Karnail Singh.

2. The facts of this case are as follows : Mst. Bachan Kaur filed an application under Section 488, Criminal P. C., claiming Rs. 50/- per mensem as maintenance from the respondent on the ground, that she was married some 9 years ago with the respondent, and that she lived with her husband as his wife and gave birth to two daughters. It is also mentioned, that the respondent treated her well so long as her father-in-law was alive, but thereafter he fell into bad ways and gave beating to the petitioner and turned her out of the house. In spite of panchayats being taken, she was not kept in the house and lastly turned her out of the same four years ago by giving her beating and has remarried nearly two years ago.

3. The proceedings are forwarded for revision on the following grounds : It is urged on behalf of Karnail Singh, that the maintenance fixed is excessive and that his statement was not recorded under the provisions of Section 342, Criminal P. C., which has vitiated the trial. His counsel has cited -- Detnello v. Mrs. Demello, AIR 1926 Lah 667 (A), wherein it was observed, that the omission of the Magistrate to examine the accused as required by Section 342, Criminal P. C. vitiated the order granting maintenance. No authority to the contrary has been cited by the learned counsel for Mst. Bachan Kaur, who claimed in her revision the increase of the maintenance allowance. In view of the above cited authority, I cannot but agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for Karnail Singh. I thus forward the revision petition of Karnail Singh to the High Court with the recommendation, that the order of the Magistrate, dated ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER

4. In case No. 7473 of 1952, Shri Beni Pershad, Magistrate, ordered that a sum of Rupees 30/- be paid by Kamail Singh respondent to Mst. Bachan Kaur on account of maintenance from the date of the application under Section 488, Criminal P. C., hereinafter referred to as the Code.

5. Karnail Singh applied under Section 435, of the Code for the revision of the order passed by the Magistrate on the 24-10-1952.

6. In the revisional proceedings, Karnail Singh raised double-barrelled objection to the order passed by the court of first instance. In the first place, it was said that the non-examination of the applicant under Section 342 of the Code vitiated the trial. In the second place, it was said that the maintenance fixed was excessive.

7. Basing himself on AIR 1926 Lah 667 (A), the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, has reported the case to this Court with a recommendation that the order of the Magistrate passed on the 24-10-1952, may be set aside.

8. In AIR 1926 Lah 667 (A), Shadi Lal C. J. said :

"While I am not prepared to endorse all the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in support of his opinion that the trial of the case by the Magistrate was illegal, I consider that the omission of the Magistrate to examine the accused, as required by Section 342, Criminal P. C. vitiated the order granting maintenance."

9. In these proceedings the question that arises for decision is whether the non-examination of the applicant under Section 342 of the Code vitiated the order granting maintenance.

10. Section 342 of the Code reads :

"342(1). For the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court may, at any stage of any inquiry or trial without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary, and shall, for the purpose aforesaid, question him generally on the case after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence.

(2) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answe