High Court Karnataka High Court

Imriyaz Ahamd S/O.Gaffarsab … vs Mahejbin @ Salima W/O.Imtiyaz … on 11 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Imriyaz Ahamd S/O.Gaffarsab … vs Mahejbin @ Salima W/O.Imtiyaz … on 11 December, 2009
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 11th DAY or DECEMBER, zooefra.

BEFORE

THE I-£ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA_SwAL*J}'  % T' '

CRIMINAL PETITION 1vo_. soS¢;'2co9'A -- .1: '-

BETWEEN:

SR1. IMRIYAZ AHAMD _

S/O. GAFARSAB MOMIN.  

AGE: 32 YEARS, occ; NIL":  _ -_  ;

R/O. EVTH CROSS, AZAD NAGAR  

BELGAUM, DEST: B.:2:LSAuM~--.j; A» ~
..    .   PETITIONER

{By Sri. S;L_1:vA--RA;i-" ADV.)

AND:
 "  SMf1":. MAHEJBIN" AL..I.AL-3 SALIMA
2 'wé/'O 11v[T1YAzAHAMMAD MOMIN
 ' AGE; :22 YEARS, occ: HOUSE HOLD WORK
 RV/(O. PAJU'NN'ISvA, HAJISAB BAGEWADI

K.U'E\*IRUDDjI--NAESHAIKH CI-IAWL, 11 CROSS
SU-BHAS~NA»GAR, BELGAUM, DIST. BELGAUM

" "  MISSALIMIRA @ MAHIRA

 1:)'/Q. IMTIYAZHAMED MOMIN
' A'-C_rE.--i 4 YEARS, occ: NIL
SINCE MENOR, REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL

  1. _C'xUARD1AN MOTHER i.e. PETITIONER No.1

*4



Ex.)

3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD

(By Sri. P. H. GOTKHINDI, i-ICGP FOR R3
R1 82; R2 ~ NOTICE DISPENSED)

 RESPOND A'

THIS CRL.I> IS FILED U/s._482__CR';R§C'*--§'.I3Y""
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYIVNQTO QUASH j
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL MISC. 'IxIg'.255/2_OO_gv~,

PENDING ON THE FILE: OF' JUDGE" Ii'AI\zi»Imf,CoII'RT','
BELGAUM BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.   

THIS PETITON COMING ON,FOR"AD-MIssI'oN..THis DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE EOaLLo\N_ING.:,' ~  "

Petitioner   to quash the entire criminal

proceedings 2008 pending on the file of

VI.--Fami1y~<5.ourt, Be1ga'u.rn_,___&.vHe submits that maintenance suit

'was  by 'the.,:Wife and daughter in Crl. Misc. No.184/ 2006

onitiIei'.fi.1e VofCFf'a.rrI'iij'ziV.Court, Beigaum. The Family Court by its

order dated"-V:(&).2";()v8.2O08 passed the judgment with direction to

 petitioner to pay the maintenance and also the arrears.

Thei"safne has not been paid by the petitioner. Hence execution

it --ihas--Deen filed in Crl. Misc. NO256/2008, in which the order of

ii

'K



Lo)

arrest has been made. On 31.01.2009 the arrest warrant has

been issued and the same was served and the petitionerfihas

been taken into custody and now he is in judicial custody:L"- 

2. The learned Counsei for the petitioners thati

before arresting a person for non-compliance 'ordcr;..tp'th.g_p it

Court should take steps by coerciye measures likieavttachifingi
the property of the respondent.  in ti:.eiii'i11istai'it case,

without initiating any steps for property of the

petitioner, directiy he has been-C-taken’ and now he

is in jail rt;i+”iéititii~sfipthatfitt i1″I[‘tfV_:):’1″1tl’1S..HiiVi;Ii€ submits that the said
action on the part contrary to the judgment

quoted in_Panjab.. &”Haivyaza_ai}*1’igh Court Judgment reported in

.658 t}te—-ease of Om Parkash vs, Vidhya Dew),

vv’hpe’r-ein–i.it heid—_”Execution proceedings for recovery of

Vmaintenianceiaiiowance ~ Court cannot pass order or arrest

without resorting to coercive measures provided under Section

i4?xI.,1ii¢e–~attachment of property etc.”

3. The learned Govt. Pleader submits that

has not stated all these things before the Court belovv it

not made any application to that extent?’ liencle th.e:ilpe_tition:erl’3

has been taken into custody.

4. I have heard the argumentsdtnpade lby. bcthjfihleavlpartiles.

5. In the light of the rnade byllthel parties,
whenever an order is passed initiated, the
Court should take. steps recover’«.thel_j_p,roperty or arrears by
making attach:hent—-.o’1″‘ the concerned. If the
respondent purplols*efully’i ppand-.,._i,,ntentionaliy avoids, then the

application if made for arrest warrant is to be

considered’. In ti’1::-,:_ instant case, no such steps have been

‘.tal{en,& ‘Kiln ofthe same, I pass the following:

” Miisc. ‘j_No.lll6434/2009 is allowed. Direction is issued

topreleasepthe petitioner from the judicial custody immediately.

thefllrespondents No.1 and 2 are the petitioners in the

I?arriilyilCiourt, in the light of the legal position narrated above,

“notice to respondent No.1 and 2 is dispensed with and liberty

is reserved to them to make necessary applicmaffiori—o:’for..

attachment of property.

With these directions, the petitior; is:.a,llovlfed.:.’._’Th’e’ .’

below will have to proceed furthereina accoi’r1ararce witli’Eaw.

gab