AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
The respondent no.1 has been granted maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 4/04/2016 has directed issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner for nonpayment of the maintenance. The impugned order would show that the application Exhibit 14 filed by the first respondent was allowed, while application Exhibit 25 filed by the petitioner for stay was dismissed. The petitioner challenged the order of the learned Magistrate before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.51/2016. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the Criminal Revision Application by judgment and order dated 18/08/2016 which brings the petitioner to this Court.
It is undisputed that during the pendency of this petition the petitioner has cleared entire arrears of maintenance up to March, 2017. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in all fairness states that the petitioner shall not press the relief as claimed in application Exhibit 25 and restrict his challenge to the order issuing warrant. In view of the fact that the entire arrears are cleared of, the impugned order issuing warrant will have to be set aside. In such circumstances, the following order is passed :
O R D E R
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order issuing warrant against the petitioner is hereby set aside.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.