IMPORTANT POINT
Enforcement of maintenance orders as a money decree of a Civil Court and the requirement of recording sufficient reasons for issuing warrants of arrest.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed, inter-alia, praying as under:

"(a) Pass such directions to the subordinate courts in order to ensure their strict compliance with the directions passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment titled as `Rajnesh versus Neha and Another.'

(b) Set aside the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the Ld. M.M. (Mahila Court), Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, wherein warrants of arrest were issued against the Petitioner/Husband."

2. The learned Executing Court by its order dated 24.06.2022 (hereafter `the impugned order') had issued warrants of arrest against the petitioner in the sum of Rs.50,000/-.

Brief Facts

3. The marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 29.01.2016. It is stated that the Respondent No. 2 (wife) had instituted a case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereafter `DV Act') against the present petitioner (husband) as well as the other family members seeking various interim reliefs, including monetary relief under the said Act. By order dated 16.01.2021, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (hereafter `MM') had granted a monthly interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, to be paid to Respondent No. 2.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, had challenged the same before the learned Sessions Judge on 12.02.2021, wherein the petitioner had also moved a separate application, seeking stay of the operation of the order dated 16.01.2021. It is stated that during the pendency of the said proceedings, neither the appeal nor the application was decided by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner had also approached this court by way of Crl. M.C No.3266/2021, whereby this court had directed the learned Sessions Judge to decide the matter expeditiously.

5. It is stated that, however, even after passing of the said order, the said appeal has not been decided till date and the petitioner is constrained to pay maintenance.

6. The Execution Petition was filed by Respondent No. 2 before the Court of learned MM (Mahila Court) Shahdara District, Karkardooma District Court, Delhi. During the course of execution proceedings certain amounts are stated to have been paid by the petitioner to the Respondent No. 2. The matter was listed before the learned Executing Court, where the parties appeared from time to time. When the matter was listed on 24.06.2022,the petitioner did not appear, which led to issuance of impugned warrants of arrest.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned MM has committed a grave error by straightaway issuing the warrants of arrest.

8. He submits that the petitioner has been regularly making the payments and has already paid a sum of Rs.10,80,000/- to the Respondent No. 2, which clearly shows that he has no intention to bypass the directions passed by the learned Trial Court.

9. He further submits that due to some financial constraints in between, the petitioner was unable to pay the entire amount.

10. It is further submitted that it was only the first non-appearance before the learned Executing Court, which should not have led to issuance of the warrants of arrest.

11. Learned counsel further submits that the learned MM has failed to take into consideration the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the execution of the orders of maintenance. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, it was categorically directed that the enforcement/execution of order of maintenance is to be enforced as a money decree of Civil Court as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter `CPC').

12. He submits that the said procedure does not entail issuance of warrants at the very first instance of non-appearance.

13. It is further submitted that before proceeding to issue warrants of arrest, it is incumbent upon the Court to first issue a notice to the judgment debtor.

14. He further relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Mohan Goswami