Maintenance orders can be executed in jurisdictions based on temporary residence, affirming a spouse's right to choose the execution venue under the Code's provisions.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant petition under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter "Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the petitioners seeking setting aside of the Order dated 28th April, 2018, passed by Family Court, Dwarka, New Delhi in Execution Petition No. 122/2017.

2. The Petitioner No.1 (hereinafter "the Petitioner") and the Respondent are wife and husband, while Petitioner no. 2 and 3 are the daughter and the son, respectively, born out of their wedlock. The brief facts of the case leading up to the present petition are summarized as under:

i) Marriage between the concerned parties was solemnized on 12th July, 1988, and after a span of time, temperamental issues and marital differences arose between the parties, subsequent to which, they started living separately since 2000.

ii) Thereafter, the Petitioner filed Maintenance Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and vide Order dated 30th August, 2005, whereby the Respondent was directed to pay Rs.1000/- per month to the Petitioner No.1 and Rs.500/- per month to Petitioner No.2, 3 and the third daughter.

iii) The Petitioner then moved the Court for execution of Order dated 30th August, 2005, which was withdrawn on account of the settlement between the parties before the Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. However, the Respondent did not comply with the terms laid down in the settlement agreement and hence the Petitioner filed another Execution Petition bearing No. 122/2017 before the learned Family Court, Dwarka, New Delhi for execution of order of maintenance.

iv) The Respondent, in compliance of the maintenance order, was paying certain amount, in pursuance of which the Petitioners sought liberty from the learned Trial Court to amend/withdraw and refile the Petition with the prayer of payment of arrears of maintenance amount and warrants of attachment in case of failure on part of the Respondent.

v) The learned Trial Court passed the Impugned Order dated 28th April, 2018, whereby it noted that the Memo of Parties in the Execution Petition indicated that the Respondent herein, resided at Bharti Nagar, District Shaharsa, Bihar and that the Petitioner can seek execution of the Order of maintenance before the Courts in Shaharsa, Bihar. Hence, the learned Trial Court directed that a transfer certificate may be issued for execution against the Respondent.

vi) The Petitioner is before this Court seeking setting aside of the said Order of the learned Trial Court.

3. Ms. Mallika Parmar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. lays down the power with the Magistrate to order for monthly maintenance where they think fit. Such power is available to every Magistrate, and it is at the option of the person filing for maintenance who may decide where it may be filed. Under Section 126 of the Cr.P.C., it is unequivocally stated that the proceedings under Section 125 may be taken against any person in any district where he is, where he or his wife resides, or where he last resided with his wife. According, to this provision, the Petitioner was well within the mandate of the Code, having proceeded against the Petitioner in Delhi, since, the Respondent was in the jurisdiction of Delhi while the application for maintenance was filed and adjudicated against him. Further, under Section 128 of the Code, the order of maintenance may be enforced by any Magistrate where the person against whom it is made may be. Therefore, under the Cr.P.C., the Petitioner "may"