Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. Petitioners learned counsel relying Jai Kaur v. Ajaib Singh, 1988(1) All India Hindu Law Reporter 340 and Piara Singh v. Satwant Kaur and others, 1988(2) Punjab Law Reporter 579 contended that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is passed in favour of the petitioners on 20th August, 1990 by the Additional District Judge, Jind. The respondent-wife has not obeyed this decree. Hence, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure even on the interim basis. The second contention is that the Courts below have fallen into an error in straightaway issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner for realisation of arrears of the maintenance under section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Instead of arresting the petitioner, in the first instance, Magisterial court ought to have issued warrant of attachment of moveable/immoveable property of the petitioner. To buttress this contention, he has relied on Raj Kumar v. Smt. Krishna Kumari and another, 1984(2) CLR 396. Hence, he prays that the impugned orders be quashed whereby for recovery of the arrears of maintenance granted by t