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.

JUDGMENT

R.K. Pattanaik, J. - Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 22nd July, 2022 passed in Criminal Execution No.27 of 2020 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar arising out of CRP No.83 of 2013 pending disposal of CMC Nos.8 of 2019 and 01 of 2021 corresponding to Criminal Execution Nos.27 of 2020 and 51 of 2022 respectively on the grounds stated inter alia that issuance and execution of NBWA towards recovery and realization of arrear maintenance is unjustified and untenable in law and hence the same is liable to be interferred with and set aside with a consequential direction to consider and dispose of applications filed under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. as the maintenance directed and payable to the opposite parties was allowed ex-parte.

2. While dealing with the execution proceeding, the learned Family Court vide the impugned order 22nd July, 2022 in Criminal Execution No.27 of 2020 denying recall of DW moved by the petitioner and since the arrear dues was not paid to the opposite parties despite opportunities provided, issued NBWA against him. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court on the ground that such execution could not have been directed during the pendency of the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. and hence, the coercive action for realization of maintenance allowed ex-parte is bad in law.

3. Heard Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

4. The petitioner is the husband of opposite party No.1 and father of opposite party No.2. As it appears, opposite party No.1 has married the petitioner in 2008 but thereafter disturbance started in their marital life, as a result of which, the former filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance from the latter in CRP No.83 of 2013. The said application was disposed of on 7th August, 2014 with a direction by the learned Family Court to the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- and Rs.8,000/- to opposite party Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The petitioner then moved an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. in CMC No.2 of 2014 against the order of maintenance dated 7th August, 2014 passed in CRP No.83 of 2013. In the meantime, execution was levied by opposite party No.1 in EP No.63 of 2014 for recovery of arrear maintenance pending by then. As it further appears, the petitioner challenged the ex-parte maintenance order dated 7th August, 2014 in RPFAM No.154 of 2014 which was disposed of on 18th March, 2015 with a direction to the learned Family Court to consider the application filed under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. which was pressed into service for setting aside the ex-parte maintenance order 7th August, 2014 within the time stipulated. While considering such application in CMC No.2 of 2014, the learned Family Court allowed the same but subject to conditions, such as, deposit 50% of the arrear dues within 15 days and balance by the petitioner in two equal monthly installments payable on 1st July, 2015 and 1st August, 2015. Against the said order, the petitioner filed RPFAM No.76 of 2015 which however stood dismissed for non-prosecution but its restoration was allowed subject to cost. In connection with EP No.63 of 2014, the leaned Family Court in the meantime, issued NBWA against the petitioner for non-payment of arrear maintenance for an amount of Rs.2,93,000/-. Against such action of the learned Family Court, the petitioner filed CMC No.1629 of 2016 which was dismissed by order dated 12th April, 2017. As it is also made appear, the petitioner had filed CRLMP No.443 of 2016 challenging the order dated 4th June, 2015 which was the subject-matter of the RPFAM no.76 of 2015 which had been dismissed earlier and its restoration was allowed with cost reduction of which had been applied for in MC No.191 of 2017 which was again dismissed on 3rd August, 2017. In 2017, as it is revealed from the record, the pe