Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Jai Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Meenakshi – Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 210 of 2023 & CM APPL. 35959 of 2023
Decided On : 18-07-2023
Limitation - Execution of Maintenance Arrears - The court dismissed the objections raised by the judgment debtor regarding the limitation for filing the execution petition and non-mentioning of payments in the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The judgment debtor filed objections claiming that the execution petition for recovery of arrears of maintenance was not maintainable due to limitation and non-mentioning of payments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the objections raised by the judgment debtor to be without merit and dismissed the appeal along with the pending application.
Issues: Objections under Section 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding limitation and non-mentioning of payments in the execution petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the time limit for filing the execution petition is 12 years, and the objection of limitation was rightly rejected. The court also dismissed the objections under Section 47 CPC as being without merit.
Final Decision: The appeal and the pending application were dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed on behalf of the appellant against the Order dated 07.07.2023 passed in Ex. No. 34/2022 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Central, Tis Hazari, Delhi, whereby the Objections under Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 preferred by the respondent/Decree Holder were dismissed.
2. Shri Jai Kumar Judgment Debtor had filed the objections under Section 47 and 151 CPC claiming that the present execution has been filed for recovery of arrears of maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- per month for the period 14.09.2018 to 30.10.2022 amounting to Rs.1,74,000/-. The arrears claimed are beyond a period of three years and, therefore, is not maintainable.
3. It was further alleged that in Column 6 of the Execution Petition the Decree Holder had reflected that no payment has been received from the Judgment Debtor, when in fact Rs.50,000/- have been paid from time to time during the pending litigation. It was claimed that the execution petition was, therefore, not maintainable.
4. The learned Judge, Family Court, has rightly observed that the time limit for filing the execution petition is 12 years. Article 105 of Schedule to Limitation Act deals with filing of suits/petitions for recovery of arrears of maintenance and it does not deal with the execution petitions. The objection of limitation as agitated by the Judgment Debtor was rightly rejected. In so far as non-mentioning of Rs.50,000/- in the petition is concerned, it has been pointed out by the Decree Holder that an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C has also been filed by the Judgment Debtor for making a false statement in the Execution Petition.
5. Learned Judge, Family Court has rightly dismissed the objections under Section 47 CPC as being without merit.
6. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present appeal and the appeal along with pending application is dismissed.
The time limit for filing the execution petition for recovery of arrears of maintenance is 12 years, and objections under Section 47 CPC must have merit to be considered.
Non-compliance with court orders and statements can disentitle a petitioner to relief.
Court directed Family Court to expedite execution processes in maintenance cases due to delays.
The Family Court must consider maintenance applications on merits and take into account the appellant's statement of accounts at the time of disposal of the application.
The court can impose imprisonment for a period longer than one month based on the accumulation of arrears and pendency of the petition.
Point of Law : Family Courts are specifically directed that, execution proceedings shall be kept pending only in cases where this Court specifically granted order of stay and in such cases also, orde....
A court will not interfere under S.115 CPC with execution proceedings for maintenance recovery when the judgment debtor has sufficient assets but fails to satisfy the decretal arrears, and where the ....
Maintenance claims must be enforced within one year of becoming due, with any claims exceeding this period being irrecoverable, as per Section 125(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
