AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (11) TMI 357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry manner taking a thoroughly untenable and unjust view, the High Court has rejected the Revisional Application summarily Both the Courts have done so notwithstanding the fact that the point involved (whether detaining the husband in jail for failing to pay the arrears of maintenance would be tantamount to satisfaction of the order of maintenance passed in her favour even though the arrears of maintenance PG NO 764 allowance remain unrecovered in fact) is not capable of being answered against the petitioner. The Metropolitan Magistrate (Shri L.D. Malik) in his order dated July 4, 1981 recorded a clear finding that the husband was guilty of cruelty in the context of the demand for dowry. He observed: "I have heard the attorney for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le imprisonment for one month pursuant to the order dated 1.1.1982 of the Metropolitan Magistrate (Shri L.D. Malik). The operative portion of the order reads as under "The J.D. Surinder Singh, s/o Bhagwan Singh is accordingly sentenced to S.I. for one month and shall be released if he makes payment of Rs. 5090 as maintenance due from him upto 16.1.82. Both the execution tiles pending are PG NO 765 disposed of accordingly except that payment of R.400 remains to be paid to D H. who shall appear personally for obtaining the amount. The wife prayed for recovery of the arrears, whereupon the Metropolitan Magistrate rejected her prayer on the ground that the claim for arrears stood satisfied upon the husband having been sent to jail. Says the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to appeal by special leave. We fail to comprehend how such an important question arising in the context of the petition preferred by a helpless woman could have been summarily rejected by the High Court by a non-speaking order. To say the least of it, it betrays total lack of sensitivity on the part of the High Court to the plight of a helpless woman. Were it not so, the High Court would have at least passed a speaking order unfolding the rational process which made the High Court PG NO 766 feel helpless in helping a helpless woman and a helpless child. The legal position may not be examined. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) provides for an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o comply with the order, any such Magistrate may for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying finest 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. The scheme of the provisions embodies in Chapter IX of the Code comprising of Sections 125 to 128 which constitutes a complete code in itself requires to be comprehended. It deals with three questions, viz.: (1) PG NO 767 adjudication as regards the liability to pay monthly allowance to the neglected wife and child etc., (2) the execution of the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance which has fallen in arrears Monthly allowance is paid in order to enable the wife and child to live by providing with the essential economic wherewithal. Neither the neglected wife nor the neglected child can live without funds for purchasing food and the essential articles to enable them to live. Instead of providing them with the funds, no useful purpose would be served by sending the husband to jail Sentencing to jail is the means for achieving the end of enforcing the order by recovering the amount of arrears. It is not a mode of discharging liability. The section does not say so. The Parliament in its wisdom has not said so commence does not support such a construction. From where does the Court draw inspiration for persuading its....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l follow. So far as the amount of monthly allowance awarded in this particular case is concerned, by consent of parties, we pass the following order in regard to future payments with effect from 15th August, 1986. We direct that Respondent No 1, Surinder Singh shall pay Rs. 275 (Rs.200 for the wife and Rs. 75 for the child) as and by way of maintenance to the appellant Smt Kuldip Kaur commencing from August 15, 1986. The amount of Rs. 275 shall be paid by the 15th of every succeeding month. On failure to pay any monthly allowance for any month hereafter on the part of respondent No 1, Surinder Singh, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall issue a warrant for his arrest, cause him to be arrested and put in jail for his failure to co....