THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 2417 OF 2011 O R D E R: The writ petitioner is presently working as a Head Constable with the Special Armed Reserve Force of the State. It is stated that one Smt. B. Vijaya Lakshmi, claiming as the wife of the writ petitioner herein has moved M.C.No. 5 of 1985 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Mahaboobnagar. In the said Maintenance Case, Crl.M.P.No. 107 of 2003 has been moved by her seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount from a pittance of Rs. 300/- to Rs.1,000/-, keeping in view the standard of living as expected of a wife of a Head Constable. Entertaining the said Crl.M.P.No. 107 of 2003, and after considering the rival submissions, the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Mahaboobnagar passed orders on 20.06.2003, allowing the said Crl.M.P. It is apt to record the concluding portion of the said order: “ In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to the maintenance amount of Rs.1,000/- from the date of filing the petition. The respondent is directed to pay the same.” There is no material that has been brought on record to demonstrate that the writ petitioner, who is the respondent in the said Crl.M.P. No. 107 of 2003, has complied with the said order. When the writ petitioner herein has failed to comply with the said order, another Crl.M.P.No. 873 of 2004 in Maintenance Case No. 5 of 1985 appears to have been moved, pursuant to which, an order has been passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Cass, Mahaboobnagar ordering for recovering an amount of Rs.10,000/- representing the arrears of maintenance from 20.06.2003 to 20.04.2004. Based upon the said warrant issued by the Court, the Commandant of the Special Armed Reserve Force passed an order on 21.10.2005, for recovery of an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the salary of the writ petitioner, at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month, commencing from the month of November 2005 for which month, the salary becomes due and payable on 01.12.2005. This amount was sought to be recovered, for honouring the warrant issued by the competent Criminal Court in the above- referred matter. From this, I gather that the writ petitioner has fallen due and in arrears of payment of monthly maintenance to his wife, as ordered by the competent Criminal Court. Now, the Commandant has passed another order, on 07.12.2010, showing as to the quantum of arrears payable by the writ petitioner, which amounted to Rs.60,900/-. The same has been worked out in paragraph 2 of the said order, as under: “ Now the arrears of enhanced maintenance allowance from Rs.300/- to R.1,000/- from June 2003 to August 2010 is worked out as indicated below: 1. June 2003 to December 2003 (7 months) @ Rs.700/- p.m. Rs.4900-00 2. Jan-2004 to Dec-2004 (12 months) @ Rs.700/- p.m. Rs.8400-00 3. Jan-2005 to Dec-2005 (12 months) @ Rs.700/- p.m. Rs.8400-00 4. Jan-2006 to Dec-2006 (12 months) @ Rs.700/- p.m. Rs.8400-00 5. Jan-2007 to Dec-2007 (12 months) @ Rs.700/- p.m. Rs.8400-00 6. Jan-2008 to Dec-2008 (12 months) @ Rs.700/- p.m. Rs.8400-00 7. Jan-2009 to Dec-2009 (12 months) @ R.700/- p.m. Rs.8400-00 8. Jan-2010 to Aug-2010 (08 months) @ R.700/- p.m. Rs.5600-00 --------------------- Rs.60900-00 ---------------------- Therefore, from a perusal of the above order, it is clear that the writ petitioner was paying monthly maintenance charges at Rs.300/- instead of Rs.1,000/- as ordered by the competent criminal Court in Crl.M.P.No. 107 of 2003. Hence, the arrears at the rate of Rs.700/- per month is sought to be recovered through the impugned order. Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the order passed by the competent authority is contrary to the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence, it is illegal. The learned counsel would submit that in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., if any person fails, without sufficient cause, to comply with the order passed by the Magistrate, the Magistrate may issue for every such breach of the order, a warrant for levying the amount due and such a warrant can be issued only when an application is made to the Court within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the respondent has acted illegally and contrary to the provision contained in sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and hence, the impugned order shall be declared as illegal. I am afraid, the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is without any merit. The writ petitioner being a civil servant of a disciplined Force of the State, is required to maintain his wife, so long as the relationship between them subsists. No civil servant can abandon his spouse and/or expose such a spouse to miserable conditions of life. Such a conduct on the part of a civil servant is incompatible to the very nature of duties and responsibilities liable to be entrusted by the State. While extracting services from their servants, the State pays them the salary and allowances commensurate with the nature of duties and responsibilities performed by them. In that process, they do not apply with any degree of mathematical precision as to how much money should be paid towards salary and allowances for the exact quantum of responsibilities discharged. The package of salary and allowances, which will be announced by the State periodically and accordingly, regulate the pay and allowances of the civil servants, has an inbuilt component of the obligation to take care of the dependant family members of every servant. Therefore, the salary and allowances received by a civil servant has in it an indivisible component towards maintenance of the dependant family members. It is therefore, obligatory for every civil servant to take care of his dependants, commensurate with the salary and allowances received by him. Failure to do so can invite criticism that the civil servant has breached the inherent caveat of good conduct expected of him. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I cannot correct any order that might be passed by a competent criminal Court. If the competent criminal Court passed an order erroneously, warranting attachment of salary and allowances of a civil servant, for satisfying an order passed by it, for payment of maintenance to the dependant wife or children, such an order can only be challenged for its legality and sustainability in an appeal or a revisional jurisdiction proceedings. They cannot be collaterally challenged by instituting a Writ Petition. These well-defined limitations of jurisdiction compel me to dismiss this case without any hesitation whatsoever and accordingly, I dismiss this Writ Petition at the admission stage itself, after hearing Ms. Niyata, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 8th February 2011 ksld