Sm. Sheopiari Vs. Devi Prasad

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........made a second application for maintenance under section 488, cr. p. c., which came up for hearing before sri v. n. vidyant, magistrate first class. the magistrate refused to entertain this application for maintenance on the ground that a similar application made before the additional city magistrate had already been dismissed. srimati sheopiari went in revision to the sessions judge. the sessions judge is of opinion that the mere fact that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights had been instituted by one rameshwar dayal should be no ground for throwing out the application for maintenance made by shrimati sheopiari.4. it is not disputed on behalf of the opposite party in this court that shrimati sheopiari was 'originally the wedded wife of devi prasad. his case was that some three years ago shrimati sheopiari left the protection of her husband devi prasad and began to live with rameshwar dayal as his wife and she was, therefore, not entitled to claim maintenance from him.5. the view taken by the learned sessions judge appears to me to be correct. the mere institution of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights should not be enough to throw out the application of shrimati sheopiari. the learned magistrate ought to have recorded a finding on evidence if shrimati sheopiari had been living apart by mutual consent and the remedy under section 488, cr. p. c. was barred to her under section 488 (4), cr. p. c. no such inquiry was, however, made by the learned magistrate and he took the short cut of throwing out the application.6. the reference is, therefore, accepted and the order passed by sri v. n. vidyant is set aside. the proceedings will be reopened at the stage at which they were dismissed and shall be transferred to some other competent magistrate for disposal according to law.