Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Advocates

Mr. K. R. Subramama Sastri for the Petitioner.
The Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.

Judges

Sadasiva Aiyar
Phillips, JJ.

Acts

Sect. 42 of the Specific Relief Act.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judicial Opinion — Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a challenge in revision by the petitioner Narayanan Moosad to magisterial orders for maintenance in favour of the respondent Ittecherry Amma and her children.

Chronology (as stated in the opinion):

12 May 1916: A Magistrate ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 15 per month for the maintenance of the respondent's elder child; the petitioner denied marriage/parentage.
There was an earlier revision to this Court (Crl. R. C. No. 491 of 1916); Mr. Justice Spencer on 4 December 1916 set aside the Magistrate's order and remanded the matter for the Magistrate to consider the woman's tarwad circumstances and fix maintenance.
Meanwhile the petitioner filed a civil suit (O. S. No. 205 of 1916) in the District Munsif's Court at Tirur seeking a declaration that the defendant was not his wife and that her children were not his; the District Munsif granted the declaration.
When the criminal maintenance proceedings resumed, the petitioner produced the District Munsif's judgment and asked the Magistrate to drop the maintenance proceedings. The Magistrate refused and on 3 April 1917 ordered Rs. 8 per mensem for the boy and Rs. 7 for a younger child (dividing the earlier Rs. 15 between both children) and reaffirmed his finding that the complainant was kept by the petitioner and that the elder child was born to him.
Evidence before the Magistrate included the complainant's admissions about a release deed (Exhibit I) for Rs. 200 and a promissory note (Exhibit A) for Rs. 150 which the complainant stated she accepted because of threats of civil proceedings and that she would forgo the promissory note if a maintenance order were made.

The revision before this Court results in the cancellation of the Magistrate's order under the powers exercised by the Court (Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, being invoked expressly by one judge).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a decree of a Civil Court (District Munsif) declaring that no husband-wife relationship exists and that the children are not the petitioner's can be relied upon to prevent a Magistrate from enforcing or making a maintenance order.
Whether the Magistrate, after a civil decree on the question of relationship, was bound to accept that decree as conclusive and refrain from passing a maintenance order.
Whether the existence of a release deed and a promissory note (Exhibits I and A) executed by the complainant, and her admitted reasons for executing them, should have led the Magistrate to dismiss the maintenance petition.
Whether it was proper for the Magistrate to alter his earlier single-child maintenance award (Rs. 15) and treat it as applying to two children without giving notice or calling upon the petitioner to show cause with respect to the second child's maintenance.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Mahomed Abid Ali Kumar Kadar v. Ludden Sahiba	Explains limits of Civil Court relief against a magistrate's maintenance order and that a party may satisfy the magistrate by producing a civil order and ask the magistrate to abstain from enforcing an order on authority of other cases.	The Court relied on this authority to show that coordination between Civil and Criminal Courts exists and to support the proposition that a civil finding on relationship can be used before a magistrate as strong, if not conclusive, evidence regarding relationship between the parties.
Abdur Rohoman v. Sakhina	Referenced as authority that a magistrate may be asked to abstain from giving further effect to his maintenance order where a civil judgment establishes the absence of the relationship.	Referred to as part of the authorities which permit a magistrate to decline enforcement when a civil court has determined the relationship adversely to the maintenance claimant.
In re Abdul Ali Ishmailji (In re Abdul Ali v. Ishmailji)	Grouped with Abdur Rohoman as authority for the proposition that a civil finding on relationship may be relied upon in magistrate proceedings to abstain from enforcing maintenance.	Used in conjunction with other cases to show established law permitting magistrates to take civil decrees into account and, in appropriate cases, abstain from enforcing their orders.
Veeran v. Ayyammah (2 Weir 614–615)	Holds that a District Munsif's final decree declaring no liability to pay separate maintenance is binding between the parties and the husband may insist the magistrate not enforce the maintenance order; magistrate's auxiliary jurisdiction cannot ignore a final decree under Section 488 CrPC; where civil decree is conclusive the magistrate's order must be cancelled.	The Court treated this decision as laying down the law in Madras and followed it to conclude that a District Munsif's decision on the question of relationship should be regarded as conclusive and should have precluded the Magistrate from making the maintenance order.
Deraji (Deraje) Malinga Naika v. Marati Kaveri	Approves and follows Veeran and Mahomed Abid Ali; distinguishes other decisions where the relationship had changed; reinforces that a final civil decree can be binding and affect magistrate proceedings.	The Court cited this case (and the fact that it approves the earlier authorities) to support the conclusion that the Magistrate ought to have treated the civil decree as conclusive on relationship and refused to pass a maintenance order.
Subhudra v. Basdeo Dube	Referred to in context as a case with different implications; noted by Phillips, J. as authority distinguishing when a civil decree may not set aside a magisterial order where there has been no change in relationship.	Phillips, J. invoked this case to caution that a civil court setting aside a maintenance order is not permissible in every situation and that there are limits when the facts and relationship have not changed.
Syed Sahib v. Meeram Bee	Holds that a magistrate is bound to abstain from enforcing a previous maintenance order when it is established that the husband-wife relationship ceased to exist since the date of that order.	Quoted among authorities demonstrating circumstances in which magisterial enforcement must yield to a civil determination on relationship.
Ghana Kanta Mohanta v. Gereli	Holds conversely that a magistrate's finding against sonship is not a bar to a Civil Court suit to establish sonship and recover maintenance.	Referenced to show nuances in the interplay between civil and criminal jurisdictions, especially where parentage/sonship is contested.
Trinayani Dasee v. Srichandan Bhuiyah	Listed among cases dealing with interaction of civil decrees and magisterial maintenance orders (contextual authority).	Referred to as part of the body of authorities on which the Court relied to determine how civil decrees can affect magisterial proceedings.
Nur Muhammad v. Ayesha Bibi (following In re Bulakidas)	Holds that when a Civil Court passes a decree for restitution of conjugal rights after a maintenance order, that civil decree suppressed the maintenance order and the maintenance order ought to be cancelled.	Used as part of the authorities to support cancellation of the magisterial order where a civil decree on relationship or conjugal rights was determinative.
In re Bulakidas	Referred to by way of authority followed in Nur Muhammad to support the view that certain civil decrees can suppress or nullify magisterial maintenance orders.	Part of the chain of authority the Court relied upon in assessing the effect of civil decrees on magisterial custody of maintenance orders.
Viramma v. Narnyya	Referred to for the proposition that an agreement or release and the surrounding circumstances may justify dismissal of a maintenance petition.	The Court indicated the Magistrate should have dismissed the petition also because the complainant had given a registered release (Exhibit I), obtained a promissory note (Exhibit A), and her evidence showed she expected a more favourable magisterial order and hence was not willing to abide by the agreement unless she obtained that order.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's reasoning proceeds in two main strands as expressed by Sadasiva Aiyar, J. and by Phillips, J., each addressing overlapping points.

Sadasiva Aiyar, J. — Reasoning

The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, in re-hearing, reaffirmed the complainant's claim of being kept by the petitioner and of paternity of the elder child and also granted maintenance for a younger child born after the original magisterial order. The Magistrate relied, in part, on the complainant's execution of a release deed (Exhibit I) and a promissory note (Exhibit A), and he reallocated the earlier assessed Rs. 15 per month between the two children.
The Judge criticises the Magistrate's procedure as "rather summary" for having allowed maintenance for the younger child on the complainant's bare statement without showing that the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to the younger child's maintenance or what would be a reasonable rate.
On the central legal point—coordination between Civil and Criminal Courts—the Judge surveys earlier authorities (Mahomed Abid Ali Kumar Kadar v. Ludden Sahiba, Veeran v. Ayyammah, Deraji Malinga v. Marati Kaveri, and others) and extracts the principle that when a Civil Court has finally decided the question of relationship between the parties, that decision is strong, and in some cases conclusive, between the parties and should be taken into account by the magistrate.
Applying these authorities to the facts before him, the Judge holds that the District Munsif's decree declaring no husband-wife relationship and that the children were not the petitioner's should have been regarded as conclusive on the question of relationship and that the Magistrate ought to have refused to make any maintenance order.
The Judge further observes that, independently, the complainant's acceptance of a registered release deed and promissory note, coupled with her testimony that she executed the release because of threats and expected a more favourable magistrate order, provided an additional ground on which the Magistrate ought to have dismissed her petition.
In consequence the Judge cancels the Magistrate's order by exercise of the Court's powers (citing Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code).

Phillips, J. — Reasoning (Concurring)

Phillips, J. agrees that the Magistrate failed to consider the effect of the agreement between parties evidenced by Exhibits A and I and that the Magistrate's order was passed after the decree of the District Munsif.
He notes that while the District Munsif was arguably wrong to award damages to the petitioner on the basis that a maintenance order had been obtained (because Civil Courts cannot normally grant injunctions to interfere with magisterial maintenance orders), the District Munsif's decree nonetheless has the effect of nullifying the present magisterial order in the present circumstances.
However, he cautions—on authority of Subhudra v. Basdeo Dube—that he is not prepared, on the limited arguments in the case, to hold generally that a civil decree will set aside a magisterial order where there has been no change of relationship between the dates involved; that is, the interplay depends on the circumstances and authorities cited.
Concluding from the particular facts and authorities that the magisterial order must be set aside, he concurs with the proposed order cancelling the Magistrate's decision.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court set aside/cancelled the Sub-divisional Magistrate's maintenance order.

Core Ruling: The Magistrate's order for maintenance is SET ASIDE / cancelled (the Court exercised its powers to annul the magisterial order, citing the applicable authorities and the particular facts, including the civil decree and the existence of Exhibits A and I).

Implications:

Direct effect on the parties: The magisterial maintenance order that had required the petitioner to pay Rs. 15 per month (later divided into Rs. 8 and Rs. 7) is cancelled; the petitioner is relieved of the magisterial obligation created by that order.
Legal consequence noted by the Court: Where a Civil Court has finally determined the question of relationship between the parties, that determination may be decisive for magisterial proceedings (subject to the limitations and distinctions shown in the authorities cited). The Court emphasised the need for coordination between Civil and Criminal jurisdictions and that magistrates must, in appropriate cases, take civil decrees into account.
No novel legal principle was announced: the decision applies and follows existing authorities addressing the relationship between Civil decrees and magisterial maintenance orders rather than establishing a new rule.

Show full summary ...

Mayarkara Illath Narayanan Moosad Petitioner (Counter-Petitioner). v. Koori Kathil Ittecherry Amma (Petitioner)

ORDER.

Sadasiva Aiyar, J. — The petitioner in revision, Narayanan Moosad was at first directed by the Magistrate to pay Rs. 15 a month for the maintenance of the respondents (Ittecherry Amma's) elder child who seems to have been born in 1914. This order was passed on 12th May 1916 notwithstanding the petitioner's denial that he kept or married the woman or that the child was born to him. Against that order there was a previous revision petition to this Court (Crl. R. C. No. 491 of 1916) and the Magistrate's order was set aside by Mr. Justice Spencer on 4th December 1916 in order that the Magistrate might consider the circumstances of the woman's tarwad and then fix the maintenance.

Pending this maintenance case before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, the petitioner filed a suit (O. S. No. 205 of 1916) in the District Munsif's Court of Tirur for a declaration that the defendant was never his wife and her children were not born to him and for another relief (not relevant to this case). The declaration was granted by the District Munsif. When the criminal maintenance case came up again before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, the petitioner produced the judgment and decree of the District Munsif and requested the Magistrate to drop all further proceedings in the maintenance case. The Magistrate refused to do so and passed a fresh order on 3rd April 1917 directing the petitioner to pay the complainant Ittecherry Amma a sum of Rs. 8 per mensem for the maintenance of the boy Kristnan and another sum of Rs. 7 for a child named Parvathi, aged nine months, that child having been in the womb when the first order of the Magistrate (12th May 1916) was passed. The learned Magistrate affirms his finding that the complainant was kept by the petitioner and the first child was born to him. And one of his reasons is that the petitioner made an attempt to compromise the complainant's claim and obtained a release deed Exhibit I for a consideration of Rs. 200. Though the petition 20 of 1916 (which seems to have been numbered after the remand as petition 125 of 16) prayed for allowance for maintenance of the elder child alone, the Magistrate, as I said before, has given her Rs. 7 for the maintenance of the younger child born about July 1916. In the evidence of the complainant taken again on the 30th January 1917 the complainant says “the second delivery was after the former case. I claim maintenance for the second child. Accused is the father. It is a female child. She admits in her evidence that she executed the release deed Exhibit I, because he threatened steps against her civilly and she also got a promissory note for Rs. 150, Exhibit A, from the petitioner. Then she says “if this Court passes an order of maintenance, I do not want the pro-note.” There is nothing to show the rate at which she claimed maintenance for the second child or that the petitioner was called upon to show cause why he should not pay maintenance for the second child or to state what according to him, would be reasonable rate of maintenance. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate has ordered the Rs. 15, which he had in his first order allowed for the maintenance of the eldest child to be now treated as the maintenance rate for both children dividing it into Rs. 8 and Rs. 7. As to why the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate refused to accept the District Munsif's decree declaring that the complainant was not the petitioner's wife nor was the child born to him, the magistrate makes the following observations: “At the risk of pronouncing an obiter dictum, I cannot help remarking that the possibility of such a thing happening” (namely a Civil Court declaring the petitioner not to be the father of the child and granting him damages for bringing a false complaint and the petitioner inducing the High Court to order the Sub-divisional Magistrate to retry the case) “does not conduce to the dignity of justice either Civil or Criminal. Some means of co-ordination should exist. In this case the procedure of this Court by comparison with that of the Civil Court is certainly not summary. I understand that the Munsif is now engaged in revising his own order.” I might here add that the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate himself has revised his former order because he says in paragraph 7 of his present order: “The sum of Rs. 15 is perhaps rather excessive for one child.” I understand that the District Munsif dismissed the review petition put in by the complainant in the civil case.

As regards the comparison indulged in by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate between the procedure of his Court and the proedure of the District Munsif's Court, it seems to me not relevant and I may perhaps be permitted to state that the manner in which the Sub-divisional Magistrate has on the bare statement of the camplainant in the witness-box in January 1917 allowed her a sum of Rs. 7 for the maintenance of the second child whose maintenance was not the subject of the complaint shows that his procedure is rather summary. The learned magistrate is quite right in saying that some means of co-ordination should exist between the Civil and Criminal Courts. I think that such means of co-ordination has been laid down by competent authorities long ago. In Mahomed A bid Ali Kumar Kadar v. Ludden Sahiba decided by Mr. Justice Prinsep (a very learned civilian Judge of high authority in criminal matters) and Mr. Justice Beverley which was argued by Mr. Amir Ali for the lady who claimed maintenance the learned Judge states as follows: “Having found (in the civil litigation)” that the relationship of husband and wife no longer exists between the parties, it remains for us to consider the effect of our finding on the proceedings before the magistrate. The plaintiff asks for an injunction to restrain the magistrate from enforcing the order for maintenance. We are of opinion that we cannot pass such an order. The plaintiff will be at liberty to satisfy the magistrate that, by order of this Court in its civil jurisdiction, it has been resolved that no relationship exists between him and the defendant and he can ask the magistrate on the authority of the cases of Abdur Rohoman v. Sakhina and In re Abdul Ali Ishmailji to abstain from giving any further effect to his order for maintenance. In 2 Weir 614, the magistrate passed an order for maintenance and then a suit was brought and the District Munsif's Court cancelled the order of the magistrate. The learned Judges say it is obvious that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for such a purpose. The decree can only enure as a decree inter partes determining the right of the parties inter se but not affecting the order of the magistrate which the High Court alone are empowered to set aside. What the District Munsif decided was that the woman had been living apart from the husband for more than twelve years. It is not decided that she did so voluntarily nor is it found that she has been living an unchaste life or has done anything to disentitle her to maintenance. If it had been so decided, the magistrate who passed the original order would have been bound in the interests of justice to take that judgment into consideration before passing a fresh order to enforce the former order because such a decision would as between the parties be strong if not conclusive evidence of what it decided.” In this decision of September 1877, the question was not finally decided as it was unnecessary to decide it for the purpose of that case. Then we come to the case noted in the very next page 615, which was decided by Wilkinson and Shephard, JJ., in August 1889. I shall quote the whole of the judgment as this has always been considered as laying down the law in Madras. “By the decree made by the District Munsif of Palghat in February 1889, the plaintiff Veeran is declared not to be liable to pay separate maintenance to his wife. The orders for such maintenance previously made by the Head Assistant Magistrate did not take away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to make the declaration under Sect. 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The Munsif's decree being final, it is binding upon the parties to it and the husband is entitled to insist that the magistrate does not enforce the order of maintenance which assumed that the obligation negatived by the decree existed. It is not open to the magistrate to ignore a final decree on the ground that it rests on reasons which do not appear to him satisfactory, the jurisdiction vesting in him under Sect. 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, being auxiliary to that of the Civil Courts. The order of the Magistrate must be cancelled on the ground that there was no sufficient reason for the wife to refuse to live with the husband and that the decision of the District Munsif is conclusive on that point. This will not, however, preclude the interference of the magistrate if there should arise any fresh causes for such interference.” I shall now consider the case of Deraji Malinga Naika…Plaintiff— v. Marati Kaveri & Another…Defendants—, C.J, and Mr. Justice Miller. The cases of Veeran v. Ayyammah and Mahomed Abid Ali Kumar Kadar v. Ludden Sahiba are referred to, approved and followed. It distinguishes the case of Subhudra v. Basdeo Dube. In Syed Sahib v. Meeram Bee, Munro and Abdur Rahim, JJ., held that “the magistrate is bound to abstain from enforcing his previous order for maintenance when it is once established that the relationship of husband and wife ceased to exist since the date of the order. In Ghana Kanta Mohanta v. Gereli it was held in the converse case that the magistrate's finding against the sonship of a person for whom maintenance was claimed by the mother was not a bar to a suit in the Civil Court to establish the sonship and to recover maintenance. See also Trinayani Dasee v. Srichandan Bhuiyah. In Nur Muhammad v. Ayesha Bibi Mr. Justice Aikman, following In re Bulakidas, says that a decree of a Civil Court for restitution of conjugal rights passed after an order of maintenance in favour of the wife suppressed the maintenance order and ought to be cancelled and we accordingly cancel it.” I am therefore clear that the learned magistrate ought to have, in the language of the case in 2 Weir 615, held that the decision of the District Munsif is conclusive of the question of relationship as declared by that decree and should have refused to pass any order for maintenance. His order is therefore cancelled in the exercise of the powers of this Court under Sect. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I might add that the woman having given a registered release deed Exhibit I and obtained the promissory note Exhibit A and her evidence clearly showing that she refused to be bound by the agreement only, because she expected an order from the magistrate more favourable than she got under the realease (she was not willing to give up her claim under the promissory note unless she got maintenance order from the magistrate) the learned magistrate ought to have dismissed her petition on that ground also See Viramma v. Narnyya.

Phillips, J.—On the ground that the joint Magistrate has failed to consider the effect of the agreement between the parties evidenced by Exhibits A and 1 (vide 2 Weir's Criminal Rulings 831) and on the ground that the magistrate's order was passed after the decree of the District Munsif, I agree in the order proposed. The suit in which the District Munsif's decree was passed was filed after the original maintenance order had been passed and the District Munsif was clearly wrong in awarding damages to petitioner against respondent on the ground that the latter had obtained a maintenance order from the magistrate; for it had been repeatedly held that a Civil Court cannot pass a decree interfering with a prior maintenance order by way of injunction or other similar order, Deraje Malinga v. Marati Kaveri and Mahomed Abid Ali Kumar Kadar v. Ludden Sahiba. The District Munsif's decree has the effect of nullifying the present magisterial order and I am not prepared to hold on the very limited arguments in this case that a party cm get a magisterial order for maintenance set aside by a Civil Court when there has been no change of relationship between the parties between the date of the order and the date of suit. Vide Subhudra v. Basdeo Dube. In the other cases such as Mahomed Abid Ali Kumar Kadar v. Ludden Sahiba, Abdur Rohoman v. Sakhina and in In re Abdul Ali v. Ishmailji the relationship between the parties had altered and in Nur Muhammad v. Ayesha Bibi the civil decree was a consent decree which provided for maintenance and in no decided case to which I have been referred has a maintenance order been allowed to be set aside by a decree based upon the same facts and materials as the magisterial order.

S. S.Order set aside.

Mayarkara Illath Nar... v. Koori Kathil Itteche...