A single judge from Gauhati High Court held as follows,
From Paras 11, 12 and 13,
Hazi Abdul Khaleque Vs Mustt Samsun Nehar on 20 Aug 1990 (IndianKanoon Ver)
11. Under Chapter XXXII, Section 401 of the Code provides that. “Any money (other than a fine) payable by virtue of any order made under this Code, and the method of recovery of which is not otherwise expressly provided for, shall be recoverable as if it were a fine.” The proviso to section 431 is not relevant here. The order for payment of maintenance was an order under the code for payment of money, for the recovery of which no method had been expressly provided. Accordingly, under section 431 of the code, I think the maintenance; money could be recovered, as if it were fine.
12. Section 421 of the Code provides for recovery of fine and the procedure laid down for the purpose was by issue of warrant for attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to offender in this case the present petitioner (opposite party in the maintenance proceeding) or issue of warrant to the Collector of the District, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter: The provision to Section 421 clearly stipulates that “no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender.”
13. On consideration of the above provisions, there should be no doubt that for recovery of money as maintenance which has to be in accordance with the procedure for recovery of fine no warrant of arrest or detention of the petitioner could have been ordered. I, therefore think that the impugned order dated 1.9.89 was clearly erroneous and has to be set aside.
Hazi Abdul Khaleque Vs Mustt Samsun Nehar on 20 Aug 1990 (Casemine Ver)
Hazi Abdul Khaleque Vs Mustt Samsun Nehar on 20 Aug 1990 (LegalData Ver)
Citations: [1990 GAULR 2 328], [1991 CRLJ 1843], [1990 SCC ONLINE GAU 36], [1990 GAU LR 2 328], [1991 CRI LJ 1843]