Basant, J.

Respondents 1 and 2 had initiated proceedings for maintenance before the Family Court against the 3rd respondent herein, their husband/father. It is unnecessary to advert to the details and sequence of events in that litigation. Suffice it to say that the Family Court ultimately allowed the said claim in O.P.No.761/99 directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- and 750/-per mensem respectively to respondents 1 and 2 creating a charge on the property. Respondents 1 and 2 sought to put that order into execution and filed E.P.No.42/2000. In E.P.No.42/2000, the appellant herein filed E.A.No.113/2001 under Order 21 Rule 58 contending that the property is not liable to be proceeded with in execution, as he has right, title and interest over the property to the exclusion of the 3rd respondent.

2. When that E.A. came up for consideration before the Family Court, the Family Court by the impugned order held that the claim petition is not maintainable. We extract the order of the Family Court below.

" Claim petition filed by the stranger is not entertainable, according to the Decree Holder. Counsel placed reliance on Joseph vs. Marium Thomas 2006(1) KLT 894. As per the cited decision "a stranger who is a purchaser of the property from the husband cannot maintain an application before the Family Court for the property". Claim is to be adjudicated by the civil court. Relied on case is squarely applicable, hence claim petition dismissed."

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the court below had grossly erred in appreciating the dictum in Joseph v. Marium Thomas (2006(1) KLT 894). According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the dictum in that case is not that the order/decree of a Family Court cannot be executed by the Family Court. The dictum is not that a claim by a third party raised in the course of execution of the decree cannot be considered and decided by the Family Court. The Family Court grossly erred in construing the dictum in 2006(1) KLT 894 and in concluding that a claim petition by a stranger/non party under Order 21 Rule 58 is not maintainable before the Family Court, contends counsel.

4. We have heard both counsel. The learned counsel for the appellant first of all relies on Section 18 of the Family Courts Act. We extract the same below:

"18. Execution of decrees and orders.-(1) A decree or an order (other than an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)), passed by a Family Court shall have the same force and effect as a decree or order of a Civil Court and shall be executed in the same manner as is prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the execution of decrees and orders.

(2) An order passed by a Family Court under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall be executed in the manner prescribed for the execution of such order by that Code.

(3) A decree or order may be executed either by the Family Court which passed it or by the other Family Court or ordinary Civil Court to which it is sent for execution."

5. The learned counsel contends that there can be no semblance of doubt on the question that an order/decree passed by the Family Court can be executed by the Family Court. We agree with the learned counsel. Powers under Order 21 C.P.C. are available to a Family Court for execution of its orders passed, except the one passed under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C.

6. The learned counsel contends that if the Family Court has jurisdiction to execute its orders, the provisions of Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. must automatically apply and a claimant who sets up right, title and interest over the property to the exclusion of the judgment debtor has the right and the obligation to raise his claim before the execution court, i.e., the Family Court. The learned counsel further points out that in the light of Order 21 Rule 58(2) which we extract below such a claimant does not have the option to go to