AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Das, J.—I am unable to agree with the views taken by the learned Sessions Judge of Shahabad. It is quite true that the, subsequent decree of the Civil Court supersedes any order for maintenance that may have been previously passed by a Criminal Court u/s 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; but, as has been held, such a decree is no answer to an application for enforcement of an order previously obtained by the wife u/s 483 of the Code for her maintenance, without proof by the husband that the conditions of the decree for custody had been duly complied with and that, without any sufficient reason, she has left his custody [See Devi Ditto v. Ganga Devi 4 P.R. 1906 ; 4 Cr. L.J. 73 : 115 P.L.R. 1907. It is quite true that one of the questions which was raised by the lady, namely, that her consent to the decree was obtained by fraud could not be investigated by the Criminal Court; but still her other allegations were there, namely, that her husband refused to maintain her and was in fact ill treating her. Those were matters which could be investigated by the Criminal Court, and they were in fast investigated by the Criminal Court. The learned District Magistrate has recorded a finding that the husband refused to maintain her. In my opinion, upon that finding it was open to the wife to apply for enforcement of the previous order passed in her favour u/s 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure I am unable, therefore, to accept the reference.