Order:— This is a petition filed by the husband against the order of the Additional First-Class Magistrate holding that a protection order by the Insolvency Court cannot take away the powers of the Magistrate for ordering the petitioner’s imprisonment under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, for failure to comply with the Court’s order. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. The respondent-wife filed a petition M. C. No. 10 of 1961 under section 488 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, on the file of the Additional First-Glass Magistrate, Pollachi. The Court granted the respondent and her children maintenance of Rs. 60 per mensem. The respondent filed C.M.P.No. 58 of 1963 under section 488, clause (3) for payment of Rs. 720 being the arrears of maintenance. A warrant was issued by the Court for distress of the petitioner’s properties. Again the wife filed C.M.P. No. 81 of 1963 on 10th June, 1963, for a warrant for arrest of the petitioner. A non-bailable warrant for arrest was issued by the Additional First-Class Magistrate, Pollachi. While so the petitioner moved the Insolvency Court by filing I.P. No. 10 of 1963 in the Sub-Court, Coimbatore. In I.A. No. 130 of 1963 the Second Additional Subordinate Judge granted an interim injunction from arrest in execution of the order in M.C. No. 10 of 1961 on the file of the Additional First-Class Magistrate, Pollachi, till the disposal of the Insolvency Petition. The respondent was also a party to this application. After the passing of this order, the petitioner under section 488 (3) came up before the Additional FirstClass Magistrate. On 1st July, 1963, the petitioner appeared before the Additional First-Class Magistrate, Pollachi and filed a counter stating that he is immune from arrest by virtue of the order of the civil Court that he could not be committed to jail for failure to comply with the order in M.C.No. 10 of 1961. The learned Magistrate considered the question whether the order of the Insolvency Court granting interim protection from arrest in execution of the order of the M.C. No. 10 of 1961 was binding on him and put an end to his powers to commit the respondent to jail even if the failure to pay arrears of maintenance was without sufficient cause. The learned Magistrate considered the question whether the order of the Insolvency Court granting interim protection from arrest in execution of the order of the M.C. No. 10 of 1961 was binding on him and put an end to his powers to commit the respondent to jail even if the failure to pay arrears of maintenance was without sufficient cause. The learned Magistrate held that the Insolvency Court by issuing an order of protection cannot take away the powers of the Magistrate for ordering imprisonment of the erring husband under section 488 (3), Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. T. R. Ramachandran, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in I.A. No. 130 of 1963 in I.P. No. 10 of 1963 the respondent was also a party and the Subordinate Judge granted protection against payment of arrears due to the respondent in M.C. No. 10 of 1961 and the respondent having been a party and not having challenged that order is forbidden from enforcing payment of arrears of maintenance through a criminal Court. It is unnecessary for the purpose of this petition to consider whether the order granting interim protection under sections 5 and 23 of the Provincial Insolvency Act is correct or not. The only question for consideration is, taking the order of Insolvency Court as valid, whether the criminal Court is barred from proceeding under section 488 (3), Criminal Procedure Code. In Yahia, In re1, Wadsworth, J., held that arrears of maintenance payable under a magisterial order under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are a debt provable in insolvency within the purview of sub-section (3) of section 46 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and in respect of such arrears a protection order can be given. In Muni Krishnayya v. Akkulamma2, the petitioner who was the husband was directed to pay maintenance to his wife under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. He failed to comply with the order. The Magistrate found that the husband had done so without sufficient cause and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment. Then the petitioner filed an Insolvency Petition and obtained an order for his release under section 23 (1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act and, on the strength of the order, made an application to the Joint Magistrate for his release. The Magistrate found that the husband had done so without sufficient cause and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment. Then the petitioner filed an Insolvency Petition and obtained an order for his release under section 23 (1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act and, on the strength of the order, made an application to the Joint Magistrate for his release. The Bench referred to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Shyma Charan v. Anguri Devi3, where the Court declined to accept the contention that the mere fact that the applicant has been adjudicated as insolvent showed that he was unable to pay the maintenance of his wife and that constituted sufficient cause for non-payment, and observed that the wording of section 488 (3) shows that in every case it is the duty of the Magistrate to find out whether the person ordered to pay maintenance under section 488 has or has not failed without sufficient, cause to comply with the order and neither the protection order nor the adjudication order could be conclusive on this point. The learned Judges further proceeded to observe: — "Prima facie, of course, it would appear to a Magistrate that an order of protection or an order of adjudication would be sufficient to show that failure to comply with an order to pay maintenance had not been without sufficient cause, but it cannot be said that the Magistrate’s hands would be tied by the order of the Insolvency Court." In Emperor v. Mohamed Hussein1, it was held that a protection order under the Insolvency Act does not protect the insolvent against the special statutory power of committal given to a criminal Court under section 488. Section 488(3) is in the nature of a punishment section by a Magistrate for disobedience of his order. It provides that if a person ordered to pay maintenance fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, the Magistrate may issue a warrant for levying the amount due and may sentence such person to imprisonment. It is clear from the decision in Muni Krishnayya v. Akkulamma2, that whether there is an order of the Insolvency Court or not, the Magistrate is bound to enquire into the question whether the husband failed to pay the maintenance ordered without sufficient cause. It is clear from the decision in Muni Krishnayya v. Akkulamma2, that whether there is an order of the Insolvency Court or not, the Magistrate is bound to enquire into the question whether the husband failed to pay the maintenance ordered without sufficient cause. This implies that the Magistrate is not barred from proceeding with a petition under section 488 (3) by an order of protection given by the Insolvency Court. The view of the Magistrate is therefore correct and is upheld. The petition is dismissed. K.L.B. ------------- Petition dismissed.