Judgment 1. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is: (1) Whether the remedy by way of issuing a distress warrant is a pre-requisite to enforce an order for maintenance against a defaulter-husband so as to issue warrant in order to commit him to jail? and (2) Whether it is an invariable rule that if a small parcel of land or a building belonging to the defaulter husband is there, it should be attached and sold and only thereafter, for the amount that remains unpaid, he can be committed to jail? 2. The petitioners are the wife and two children in favour of whom an order for maintenance was passed by the Family Court Manjeri, at the rate of Rs.350/- per month to the wife and Rs.300/- each per month to the two children. Thus, the total amount payable by the 1st respondent-husband to the petitioners herein comes to Rs.950/-per month. An application was filed by the petitioners under Section 125(3)/128 Cr.P.C. to execute the order. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a landed property measuring four cents in which a residential house is also there, stands in the name of the respondent-husband. But the fact that the house mentioned above is the one where the petitioners are residing was not taken serious note of by the court below. 3. Two remedies are available for the enforcement of the order. The first remedy is by issue of a warrant for the levy of the amount as if it is a fine under Sec.421 of the Code, by attachment and sale of any moveable property of the defaulter and/or a warrant to the collector empowering him to realise the amount as arrear of land revenue from the moveable and immovable property or both of the defaulter. The other remedy is by sentencing the defaulter/husband for the whole or in part of each month's allowance remaining unpaid, to imprisonment for a term which may exceed to one month or until payment if sooner made. Therefore, the contention that was advanced was that the first thing that must be done is to issue a distress warrant. It is only for the whole or part of each month's allowance that remains unpaid after the execution of the distress warrant that the defaulter can be committed to jail. Therefore, the contention that was advanced was that the first thing that must be done is to issue a distress warrant. It is only for the whole or part of each month's allowance that remains unpaid after the execution of the distress warrant that the defaulter can be committed to jail. Therefore, the view seems to have been taken by the court below is that the warrant empowering the District Collector to realise the amount of maintenance, as if it is arrear of land revenue, having been found not unexecutable, warrant authorising the defaulter husband to be committed to jail would be illegal. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the remedy by way of issuance of distress warrant need not be exhausted before an order for imprisonment can be made. No doubt, if an immovable property is attached but not sold it may at first blush appear that the warrant empowering the District Collector for sale of the immovable property for realisation of the amount due from the defaulter is executable and so that remedy should be resorted to. But it cannot be treated as an invariable rule as in the present case. Sentencing the defaulter husband to jail is a mode of enforcement, a mode of satisfaction of the liability. That liability can be discharged by him only by making actual payment of arrears of maintenance. An order committing the defaulter husband is one of the means for achieving the end of enforcing the order to recover the amount of arrears. Here the respondent-husband seems to have contended that so long as the immovable property with the house therein is not sold, no order committing him to jail can be passed. The purpose of sending him to jail is not to wipe out the liability which he has refused to discharge but to make him pay the amount due to the deserted wife and children. Therefore, I hold that the view taken by the court below that without effecting sale of the land with building thereon, no warrant to commit him to jail can be issued, cannot in the circumstance of this case be sustained. Therefore, I hold that the view taken by the court below that without effecting sale of the land with building thereon, no warrant to commit him to jail can be issued, cannot in the circumstance of this case be sustained. The objection that was raised by the respondent-husband was that a warrant for that purpose cannot be issued against him since the report is to the effect that the distress warrant is not unexecutable as there is a landed property with a house thereon standing in the name of the respondent-husband. In other words, the argument is that before proceeding to execute the order personally against the respondent-husband by issuing warrant against him, the said four cents of land and the house should be sold. That would mean that so long as the petitioners occupy that residential house they should not be paid anything as maintenance by the respondent. It would be a strange proposition indeed. If such a view is taken, the result would be that the wife and children would be thrown to streets. That is not the intention of the legislature. The intention is to protect the women and children from vagrancy and destitution and not to see that their residential house is sold away and thrown to the street, the learned counsel Smt.Rashmi submits. Though that land and building belongs to the respondent-husband the right of residence of the wife and children cannot be denied. It has to be protected. It can be protected only by exempting it from being proceeded against. Though such an immovable property measuring four cents and house is there, in view of the fact that, that is the residential house of the petitioners, it cannot be said that unless that land with house is sold, the respondent-husband cannot be proceeded at all. If the plea taken by the respondent is accepted, that would lead to negation of justice to the deserted wife and children. The intention of the legislature is to see that the money is realised from the delinquent husband who fails to provide maintenance. By putting forth this contention he cannot avoid paying maintenance to the wife and children. If the plea taken by the respondent is accepted, that would lead to negation of justice to the deserted wife and children. The intention of the legislature is to see that the money is realised from the delinquent husband who fails to provide maintenance. By putting forth this contention he cannot avoid paying maintenance to the wife and children. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I find that, that property (four cents of land and the house occupied by the petitioners) has to be exempted from reckoning it as the property held by the respondent-husband to be proceeded against. Since no other immovable property is reported to be standing in the name of the respondent-husband, there would be no difficulty for the learned Judge, Family Court to issue warrant against the respondent for realisation of the amount due from him and by committing him to jail if he fails to pay the amount. It is ordered accordingly. The Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above.