IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Neelam Goel – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Cr.M.C. 5289 of 2023
Decided On : 21-08-2023
Maintenance - Execution of Orders - Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act - Section 28 A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 - Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 128 of Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought direction to produce respondent no. 2 before the competent courts and execute NBWs against him for non-payment of maintenance despite multiple execution petitions. The petitioner had filed for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that despite multiple execution proceedings, the petitioner had not been able to secure the amount of maintenance granted to her.
Issues: Non-payment of maintenance, delay in execution proceedings, and the petitioner's struggle to secure maintenance for over 10 years.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for expeditious execution of maintenance orders and issued directions for timely disbursement of maintenance to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The Court directed the execution proceedings to be decided expeditiously within two months and instructed the Trial Court to issue suitable instructions to the police officials for the execution of NBWs against the accused.
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking issuance of direction to respondent no. 1 to produce respondent no. 2 before the competent courts and to execute NBWs against respondent no. 2.
2. It is stated that the petitioner was married to respondent no. 2 on 05.05.2001. Disputes arose between the parties on account of demand of dowry by respondent no. 2 and his addiction to alcohol as well as illicit relationship with two other women. The petitioner was allegedly thrown out of matrimonial home and is staying with her three children at her parental home since 13.03.2013. She had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and was granted interim maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month vide order dated 26.04.2014. She had also filed a complaint under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act before the concerned court, where the learned Judge had vide order dated 31.10.2016 fixed the maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month including rent for all tenant accommodation. The order of learned Magistrate was challenged before the learned ASJ who was pleased to uphold the order of learned MM and an FIR bearing no. 241/2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC was also registered at PS Bharat Nagar, Delhi and charge-sheet stands filed in that case. The witnesses have been examined in the said case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent no. 2 has not been paying maintenance to the petitioner and her three minor children despite several execution petitions filed which are 60 in number. It is also stated that despite issuance of bailable warrants and NBWs against the respondent no. 2, he is not appearing to attend the execution proceedings. It is now stated that the petitioner is a homemaker and it is difficult for her to take care of her three minor children and herself and since the executing courts have not been able to ensure execution of the warrants, the petitioner has not been able to secure maintenance despite orders despite struggling for the last 10 years. It is, therefore, prayed that directions be issued to the learned Trial Court and respondent no. 1 to produce respondent no. 2 before the concerned court and for execution of NBWs.
4. This Court has heard arguments addressed by both the learned counsel for petitioner and learned APP for the State, and has perused the material on record.
5. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that interim maintenance in this case was granted vide order dated 26.04.2014 passed by learned Principal Family Court, Rohini, Delhi and final order confirming the maintenance was granted vide order dated 31.08.2016 passed by learned Special Judge (P.C. ACT), CBI, Rohini Court, Delhi, and the petitioner has not yet been able to secure the amount of maintenance despite multiple execution proceedings being initiated by her.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 had considered the delay in execution of maintenance orders, and observed as hereunder:
"V. Enforcement of orders of maintenance
Enforcement of the order of maintenance is the most challenging issue, which is encountered by the applicants. If maintenance is not paid in a timely manner, it defeats the very object of the social welfare legislation. Execution petitions usually remain pending for months, if not years, which completely nullifies the object of the law.
The Bombay High Court in Sushila Viresh Chhawda v Viresh Nagsi Chhawda, AIR 1996 Bom 94 held that:
"The direction of interim alimony and expenses of litigation under Section 24 is one of urgency and it must be decided as soon as it is raised and the law takes care that nobody is disabled from prosecuting or defending the matrimonial case by starvation or lack of funds."
An application for execution of an Order of Maintenance can be filed under the following provisions:
(i) Section 28 A of the Hindu M
Section 125 Cr.P.C. embodies a commitment to social justice by offering a safety net against destitution and the hardships of being without a stable living situation.
The court established that enforcement of maintenance orders under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must be pursued through Section 128 Cr.P.C., as the latter provides the appropriate legal framework for such enf....
The final order of maintenance must be honored, and failure to participate in the proceedings can lead to the enforcement of execution proceedings for the realization of dues.
A maintenance order under Sections 125 and 127 Cr.P.C can be enforced regardless of whether the respondent resides outside the jurisdiction of the court that issued the order.
A compromise does not have any binding effect in the matter of payment of maintenance, and execution proceedings are maintainable in spite of prior compromise. The provisions of Section 125 and Secti....
Executing courts must adhere strictly to original decrees unless ambiguity arises; they can interpret, not modify, extant orders regarding maintenance from a specific application date.
(1) Right to get maintenance embodies sacrosanct principles of social justice.(2) Liability to maintain is continuous, enforceable, and insulated from considerations of proprietary holdings, flowing ....
The obligation to maintain dependents is continuous and independent of other proceedings, rooted in social justice provisions protecting vulnerable individuals.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.