Short Note : 1. Kalawati brought an application for maintenance against her husband Surendra Kumar (son of the petitioner Indrajeetram) under section 488, Cr. P.C. The order of maintenance was passed in 1957. Kalawati applied for realisation of the amount. In consequence the Tahsildar entrusted with the execution attached some cattle from custody of the petitioner. The petitioner instead of raising any objection before the Tahsildar moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate who released the property from attachment. Kalawati went in revision before the Sessions Judge, Rewa, who allowed the revision petition and restored the attachment petitioner moved the High Court. Held: The inherent power of High Court under section 397 (2) Criminal Procedure Code has to be exercised very sparingly only to prevent any abuse of process of any Court and conversely to secure the ends of justice. It has not to be exercised lightly. 2. The parties are Hindus and hence there is a presumption that a Hindu family is joint. This presumption is stronger in the case of a father and son. If someone sets up a partition in the family, he has to prove it by clear and unequivocal evidence. In this case even though the petitioner Indrajeetram had asserted partition in order to claim the attached cattle to be exclusively his, he had failed to give the particulars of the partition. In his evidence he had admitted that he was in possession of ancestral property. His other witness Kaushal Prasad (AW 2) also had admitted that there was no partition between Indrajeetram and Surendra Kumar. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that there was no partition between the petitioner and the represent No.2. The learned Sessions Judge had also found that he had made some indifferent statement regarding his coming to acquire cattle which came to be attached later on. The conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge were the only possible conclusions on the basis of the evidence adduced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 3. The learned Sessions Judge had also found that he had made some indifferent statement regarding his coming to acquire cattle which came to be attached later on. The conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge were the only possible conclusions on the basis of the evidence adduced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 3. The petitioner, however, without making any reference in the grounds of his petition today for the first time without challenging the correctness of the conclusions of the Sessions Judge asserts that the property is not liable to be attached on the ground that joint family property cannot be reached under the provisions of section 386 (1) (a) Criminal Procedure Code and in support has cited three cases: Shrawan v. Emperor (AIR 1933 Nag. p. 248), Rajendra Prasad Missir and others v. Emperor (AIR 1932 Patna p.392) and Man-mathanath Kundu and others v. Emperor (AIR 1933 Cal., p. 401). 4. It is well settled that no new matter can be raised for the first time before a High Court exercising revisional powers without it having first been taken in the Court of lowest jurisdiction. It is not disputed that this objection could not have been taken before the Executing Court. Indeed, even the objection to the effect that the movable property in question was not liable to be attached should have been taken before the Executing Officer, namely, the Tahsildar and not the Chief Judicial Magistrate who had become functus officio. [see, Rule 359 (5) (ii) Rules and Orders (Criminal), and the decision in the case of Jagat Bandhu Sahu v. Lakshmi Devi (AIR 1958 Orissa 257)]. 5. However, the cases cited by the petitioner are not an authority for laying down that the amount of maintenance awarded under section 488 Criminal Procedure Code was not realizable from the joint Hindu family property, Their facts were confined to the realization of the amounts of fine levied on the accused persons in those cases, The case of Shivlingappa Nijappa Tucchi v. Gurlingava Basappa Tucchi (AIR 1926 Bom. 103) had presented almost identical facts and in that case Fawcett and Madgavkar, JJ., had declined to interfere in the revision with the order of the lower Court attaching the joint Hindu Family property in the realization of the maintenance amount. The matter is simple. 103) had presented almost identical facts and in that case Fawcett and Madgavkar, JJ., had declined to interfere in the revision with the order of the lower Court attaching the joint Hindu Family property in the realization of the maintenance amount. The matter is simple. The property attached could be sold in the execution proceedings and its proceeds divided according to the shares of the shareholders. Petition dismissed.