JUDGMENT D.D. Seth, J. - This reference has been made by the learned First Temp. Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur, and arises out of proceedings under section 488, CrPC. 2. Smt. Shanti Devi, who is the opposite party in the reference, filed an application before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kanpur, under section 488, CrPC., stating therein that she was the wedded wife of Ram Lal and claiming monthly allowance from him. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties and after recording necessary evidence, allowed maintenance allowance to Smt. Shanti Devi at Rs. 45/- per month. It seems, however, that the maintenance allowance was not paid to Smt. Shanti Devi by Ram Lal and, thereupon, Smt. Shanti Devi filed an application for execution of the order passed by the learned Magistrate on November 28, 1968 and she claimed a sum of Rs. 540/- on account of maintenance allowance from November 24, 1967 to November 23, 68. The learned Magistrate ordered that since Ram Lal had no moveable property his salary may be attached. This order was passed on November 28, 1968 but later on December 3, 1968 the learned Magistrate modified his earlier order and passed the following order : "Put up on the date fixed. Meanwhile half salary be attached and half stayed from attachment." By the previous order the learned Magistrate had directed the Tehsildar, Kanpur, to attach the full salary of the applicant Ram Lal but by his subsequent order he directed the Tehsildar to attach half salary of the applicant and stayed the other half from attachment. Against the orders passed by the learned Magistrate dated November 2, 1689 and December 3, 1968 Ram Lal preferred a revision out of which this reference has arisen. 3. Notice of this reference has been served on Ram Lal but he is not represented in this Court. Smt. Shanti Devi is represented by Sri B. N. L. Katyar and the State is represented by Sri A, Hajela, whom I have heard. 4. I have carefully gone through the orders passed by the courts below and I agree with the referring court that the impugned orders of the learned Magistrate were without jurisdiction. Smt. Shanti Devi is represented by Sri B. N. L. Katyar and the State is represented by Sri A, Hajela, whom I have heard. 4. I have carefully gone through the orders passed by the courts below and I agree with the referring court that the impugned orders of the learned Magistrate were without jurisdiction. Sub-S. (3) of S. 488 provides for enforcement of an order passed under section 488 and reads as follows : "If any person so ordered failed without sufficient cause to comply with the order any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in manner hereinbefore provided for levying fines and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month's allowance remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made : Provided that ...................." S. 386 of the CrPC provides for realisation of fines and reads thus : "(1) Whenever an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may- (a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any moveable property belonging to the offender ; (b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the District authorising him to realise the amount by execution according to civil process against the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter : Provided that ...................." 5. In the instant case the learned Magistrate neither complied with the provisions of sub-S. (a) nor of Sub-S. (b) of S. 386. On the contrary the learned Magistrate issued an order to the Tehsildar asking him to attach half the salary of the applicant. Thus the learned Magistrate passed an order which he had no jurisdiction to pass and the referring court has rightly observed that the learned Magistrate has adopted a procedure unknown to law. The learnned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to order the Tehsildar to effect attachment of the salary of Ram Lal. Sub-S (b) of S. 386, CrPC, provides for asking the Collector to realise the amount of maintenance in the nature of civil court de cree. The learnned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to order the Tehsildar to effect attachment of the salary of Ram Lal. Sub-S (b) of S. 386, CrPC, provides for asking the Collector to realise the amount of maintenance in the nature of civil court de cree. Neither the procedure prescribed u/sub-S. (a) nor u/sub-S. (b) of S. 386 was followed by the learned Magistrate and on that ground alone the impugned order of the learned Magistrate must be set aside. There was no warrant of attachment for seizure of moveable property and the Tehsildar had no power to attach the salary of Ram Lal. Thus the referring court is correct that the order passed by the learned Magistrate on November 28, 1968 and December 3, 1968 were without jurisdiction and have to be set aside. 6. Sri B.N.L. Katyar contended that Ram Lal is an employee of Kanpur Electricity Supply Administration and the Collector of Kanpur be directed to get his salary attached. I see no justification to pass such an order. Smt. Shanti Devi can take recourse to such procedure as may be in her favour for the realisation of her maintenance allowance. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I accept the reference and set aside the orders of the learned Magistrate dated November 28, 1968 and December 3, 1968.