The court held that the Family Court's execution proceedings are to be upheld unless supported by clear evidence of suppression or contrary claims concerning payments; unsupported assertions do not warrant interference.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125(2) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13

(B) - Execution proceedings - The petitioner sought to quash proceedings related to maintenance claims and contended suppression of facts regarding payment made to the opposite party - The Family Court proceeded with the execution case despite claims of suppression by the petitioner - Relevant guidelines from the Supreme Court regarding execution proceedings; execution must not exceed the decree and should not lead to retrials. (Paras 3, 9-15, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner-husband challenged the enhancement of maintenance previously set at Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month, claiming a prior payment of Rs.2,00,000/- to the wife following an agreement to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent.

Findings of Court:
No evidence corroborated the claims of suppression regarding payment to the wife; the Family Court’s actions in progressing with the execution case were upheld.

Issues: Whether the Family Court should advance in CMA No. 02 of 2025 based on alleged suppression of payment by the wife during concurrent proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Family Court must not rely solely on assertions made without substantiating evidence, especially after the dismissal of the prior proceeding for non-prosecution.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks quashing of maintenance proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. petitioner claims suppression of payment facts. (Para 10 , 12)
3. court's requirements for substantiating claims. (Para 11 , 13 , 14)
4. supreme court guidelines on execution cases. (Para 15 , 16)
5. court holds petition lacks merit; dismissed. (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT :

MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

2. The petitioner-husband is before this Court praying for quashing of the proceeding: CMA No.02 of 2025 and Execution Case No.64 of 2025 arising out of Crl. Proceeding No.144 of 2025 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur.

3. The petitioner has received notice in the CMA for appearance on 25.03.2025. Copy of the petition in CMA No.2 of 2025 has been annexed to the writ application. Perusal of the said petition indicates that the CMA arises out of Cr. P. No.144 of 2025 filed claiming maintenance to be paid by the opposite party in the said petition-husband in the marriage, U/s.125(2) Cr.P.C. (since repealed and substituted by parimateria provision contained in Section 144 of BNSS , 2023).

4. The petition U/s.125(2) Cr.P.C. was allowed by order dated 30.07.2019 directing the petitioner herein to pay sum of Rs.2,000/-. The amount of Rs.2,000/- has been sought to be enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per month.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties had agreed and filed petition U/s.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent. The said petition was registered as C.P. No.194 of 2022 before the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur. It is further submitted that the petitioner- husband in the marriage has paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the opposite party-wife pursuant to the agreement between the parties.

6. By order dated 23.02.2026 at paragraph-6, the following was directed:

“6. On being asked whether the said aspect has been brought to the notice of the learned Judge, Family Court giving the details of the payments made to resist the claim of enhancement and if any order has been passed on the said aspect; learned counsel for the petitioner seeks and has adjournment to obtain instruction.”

7. In response to the paragraph-6 of the order, learned counsel for the petitioner files memo of date enclosing attested photocopy of the orders dated 28.01.2025 to 27.10.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner also produces the certified copy, which is returned. Memo along with photocopy is taken on record.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order dated 01.09.2025 to submit that the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur is proceeding in CMA No.02 of 2025. As was submitted earlier, today also it is again and again submitted that the opposite party has ‘suppressed’ that she has received money.

9. The said submission was earlier recorded in the order dated 23.02.2026. Today also during course of hearing the learned counsel was asked whether the petitioner has produced any evidence or has filed appropriate application in the pending CMA No.2 of 2025 substantiating the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- by him and receipt of the same by the opposite party-wife in the marriage.

In response, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the application U/s.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed on 26.09.2022 by the petitioner as well as opposite party together. The said application was dismissed on 05.08.2024 for non-prosecution.

10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Court should not have proceeded in the present CMA in view of the suppression of the fact of filing of the proceeding under Section 13 -B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

11. From the perusal of the available order sheets of the Family Court produced before this Court it is crystal clear that no such plea has been yet taken in the pending proceeding i.e. CMA No.02 of 2025 regarding suppression of any fact particular