VOL. 72 OF MAPS, PAGES 1 & 2, XXXX CITY, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA", filed in the office of the recorder of the County of San Mateo, State of California, on March 04, 1975 in Book 86 of Maps at page(s) 46 & 47. EXCEPTING THEREFROM all buildings and improvements of any nature located on aforesaid Lots 4, and 18, Block 58, as granted in the Deed from Xxxxxxx Land Company, to Citizens Savings and Loan Association, a California corporation, recorded January 17, 1977, in Book 7358, Page 221, Official Records. Assessors Parcel No: 000-000-000/ Joint Plant No.: 086-046-058-0004t 000-000-000/ Joint Plant No: 086-046-058-0006t 000-000-000/ Joint Plant No: 086-046-058-0010t 000-000-000/ Joint Plant No: 086-046-058-0017t 000-000-000/ Joint Plant No: 086-046-058-0018t PARCEL III: Parcel B, as shown on that certain Map entitled, "PARCEL MAP BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 11 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "RESUBDIVISION OF XXX 0, XXXXX 00, XXXXXXXXXX UNIT NO. 13" RECORDED MARCH 4, 1975 IN BOOK 86 OF MAPS AT PAGES 46 AND 47, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS, XXXX CITY, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA", filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Mateo County, State of California on June 1, 1977 in Book 37 of Parcel Maps at page 11. Assessors Parcel No: 000-000-000/ Joint Plant No: 086-046-058-0011t
VOL. U X -l CALCUTTA SERIES. 1231 her maintenance, he can no longer be supposed to neglect or refuse to maintain the wife. The case of Samsivau Xxx x Xxxx X . Xxxx (1) is clearly distinguishable. In that Xxxxxxxx case the order was unenforceable. In this case, a l l c iamrj%, that the wife has to do is to bring a suit to realise her maintenance. She actually obtained a decree once. If she does not choose that course, it is her own fault. The matter has been finally settled in the civil court and the criminal court can have no jurisdiction. Having elected to go to the civil court, she cannot be permitted to make a fresh application to the criminal court. The present attempt is merely to avoid the agreement, by which the wife bound herself to take Rs. 7 per month and to get an increased amount in its stead. The order passed by the police magistrate was the proper order and the Reference should be rejected or an order directing the husband to pay Rs. 7 per month be made by this Court. De^xxxx Malinga Naika v. Marati Ka/oeri (2), Veeran v. Xxxxxxxx (3). M i t t e r J. The facts which have g iv e n rise to this Reference are stated with sufficient fullness in the letter of reference by the Additional District Magistrate of 24-Parg x x x x. The District Magistrate has asked this Court to set aside the order refusing to entertain proceedings under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx. I have heard Xx. Xxxx against the Reference and Xx. Xxxxxxxxxxxx in support of the Reference. Xx. Xxxx contends that, having regard to the fact that there is an agreement between the husband and the wife that the amount of maintenance should be Rs. 7 per month, the agreement is enforceable in the civil court and the jurisdiction of the criminal courts is ousted, and he has referred to a number of rulings in support of his contention. I have examined those decisions and I da not think that the states of facts in those decisions resemble the facts in the present case.
