JUDGMENT

Addison, J. - Mohammad Sardar was ordered by a Magistrate, First Class, on 3rd November 1931, to pay Rs. 3-8-0 p.m., to his divorced wife, Mt. Ghulam Jannat, for the maintenance of their daughter. He did not pay this allowance and on 16th March 1932, she applied to have the order enforced by sending the petitioner to Jail as attempts to recover the arrears by attachment had failed. The Magistrate First Class, Kasur, held, on 25th January 1934, that Mohammad Sardar was wilfully neglecting to pay the arrears. It was brought to the Magistrate's notice that he had been declared an insolvent on 4th February 1933, but the Magistrate considered this fact immaterial as a protection order first issued by the Insolvency Judge was later on withdrawn. This Magistrate accordingly directed Mohammad Sardar, under the provisions of Section 488, Criminal P.C., to be committed to Jail for four months' simple imprisonment or until such time as he had paid the arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs. 101-8-0. The Magistrate also directed Mt. Ghulam Jannat to pay annas 6 a day into Court for his expenses in Jail. Mt. Ghulam Jannat brought a petition against the latter part of the order and Mohammad Sardar did the same with respect to the order committing him to Jail. The Additional Session Judge, Lahore, heard the two petitions. He was of opinion that the order directing "Mt. Ghulam Jannat to pay annas 6 a day for the maintenance of Mohammad 'Sardar in Jail was wrong. With respect to Mohammad Sardar's petition, he was of opinion that the Magistrate had made a mistake in committing him to Jail on account of the sum of Rs. 101-8-0 as the maximum amount leviable is for the twelve months preceding the application. Now, there were only six: months' arrears on the date of application, i.e., Rs. 21. The Additional Sessions Judge has therefore recommended that the amount for the payment of which Mohammad Sardar should be ordered to "be imprisoned should be altered to Rs. 21.

2. I have heard counsel on both sides. Certain of the questions raised by the Additional Sessions Judge are irrelevant as Mohammad Sardar obtained his discharge on 7th April 1934. Under Section 44(1)(d), Insolvency Act, an order of discharge shall not release the in solvent from any liability under an order for maintenance made under Section 488, Criminal P.C., of 1898, As he has now obtained his discharge he is liable for what was due on the date of Mt. Ghulam Jannat's application; i.e., the sum of Rs. 21. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mohammad Sardar contended that he could only be committed to Jail for one month under the provisions of Section 488(3). Criminal P.C., and he quoted Mano v. Kaka (1877) 12 P.R. 1877 Cr in support of his contention. The ruling was under another Code. The law is clearly laid down in Alla Pichait Ravuther v. Mohideen Bibi (1897) 20 Mad. 3 and Bhiku Khan v. Zahuran (1898) 25 Cal. 291 and is clearly set forth in Section 488(3). He can be committed to; prison for a term amounting to the, whole or any part of each month's allowance remaining unpaid after execution of the warrant. In the present case six months' allowance is outstanding and he can be committed to prison for six months. The order there-fore committing him to prison, or rather sentencing him to imprisonment for four months is not illegal.

3. For the reasons given I accept the recommendation of the Additional Sessions Judge and direct that Mohammad Sardar be sentenced to four months' simple imprisonment in default of payment of the sum of Rs. 21. I would point out that the proper form to be used is Form XI, Schedule 5, Criminal P.C.

4. I also accept his recommendation as regards Mt. Ghulam Jannat's petition and set aside the order of the Magistrate directing her to pay annas 6 a; day for the maintenance of Mohammad. Sardar in prison. This is not a case; of civil debtor, but a proper warrant; of imprisonment on failure to pay main[ tenance in which imprisonment can be simple ox ri