IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
Karunakar Panda – Appellant
Versus
Soumya Manjari Padhi – Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 30643 of 2022
Decided On : 01-12-2022
Warrant of Arrest - Family Court Order - The court upheld the Family Court's decision to issue a warrant of arrest against the judgment debtor, rejecting the petitioner's argument that the warrant should have been directed to the bailiff of the Court instead of the police station. The court found that the Family Court's action was in accordance with the provisions of Order XXI Rule 38 CPC and Form-13 of Appendix-E of CPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to challenge the Family Court's order directing the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the judgment debtor in an execution case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no infirmity in the Family Court's order and dismissed the writ petition for being devoid of merit.
Issues: Interpretation of provisions under Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and Order XXI Rule 38 CPC regarding the execution of a warrant of arrest by the Family Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Family Court's action was in line with the provisions of Order XXI Rule 38 CPC and Form-13 of Appendix-E of CPC, and thus, the petition was dismissed.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed for being devoid of merit.
JUDGMENT
K.R. Mohapatra. - This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 30th September, 2022 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore in Execution Case No.13 of 2021, whereby it directed to issue warrant of arrest against the JDr. in exercise of power under Order XXI Rule 38 CPC.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that in view of provision under Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the judgment / order of the Family Court shall be executed like a decree of the Civil Court. Thus, the provision of Order XXI CPC is applicable to the case at hand. Learned Family Court did not at all follow the procedure laid down therein. It is his contention that Khaira Police Station could not have been directed to execute the warrant of arrest as the Family Court is exercising power under Order XXI Rule 38 CPC.
3.1 Referring to Form-13 to Appendix-E of CPC, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that warrant of arrest should have been issued to the bailiff of the Court and not to Khaira Police Station. As such, the order dated 30th September, 2022 is bad for not following of due procedure of law.
3.2 Rule 38 of Order XXI CPC reads as under:-
'38. Warrant for arrest to direct judgment-debtor to be brought up.-Every warrant for the arrest of a judgment-debtor shall direct the officer entrusted with its execution to bring him before the Court with all convenient speed, unless the amount which he has been ordered to pay, together with the interest thereon and the costs (if any) to which he is liable, be sooner paid.'
The provision makes it clear that warrant shall be executed by the Officer so entrusted by the Court. Thus, while executing such warrant, the Officer so entrusted does not perform his duty as per the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as provided under Order XXI Rule 38 CPC.
4. Form-13 of Appendix-E of CPC provides the format for warrant of arrest in execution. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that it should be issued to the bailiff of the Court Nizarat (Administrative Office of the Court). The Khaira Police Station being not the administrative office of the concerned Court, the Officer concerned of the said PS could not have been directed to produce the Petitioner/JDr. Such a submission is not acceptable, as Form-13 is a format for issuance of the warrant, but the terminology in the said format can be suitably substituted depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the Petitioner having defaulted in complying with the direction, learned Family Court has directed for issuance of warrant against him by entrusting the same to the Officer concerned of Khaira Police Station. Thus, I find no infirmity in the impugned order.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed.
AI
Issuance of arrest warrants for recovery of maintenance arrears is illegal; enforcement must comply with statutory provisions protecting individual dignity and liberty.
The main legal point established is that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 37 of the CPC can only be invoked when there is an application for the execution of a decree for the payment of money.
Order XXI Rule 40 provides that when the judgment-debtor appears on notice issued under Rule 37, or is brought before Court after being arrested.
The obligation of the decree-holder to establish the means of the judgment-debtor sufficient to discharge the decretal debt before issuing a warrant of arrest.
Mandate of issuance of notice and doctrine of 'no means' and 'lack of bonafides' though relevant in determination of issue under Rule 37 of Order XXI C.P.C. r/w proviso attached to Section 51 C.P.C.,....
Point of law: Enforcement of the order of maintenance is provided under Section 128 of Cr.P.C., giving option to the wife to seek enforcement either in a place where the order was passed or in a plac....
The legality of warrants for arrest in non-bailable offences and the requirement for the Magistrate to specify the place and date where the accused has to appear in compliance with the proclamation u....
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.