Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: - Instant revision petition has been filed by petitioner-wife/decree-holder for quashing the order dated 08.12.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, whereby the application under Sections 47 and 51 and Order 21 Rule 32 CPC read with provisions of Hindu Marriage Act (for short ‘HMA’) for recording satisfaction of the decree passed in favour of the petitioner, filed by respondent-husband/judgment-debtor, has been allowed.

2. The short questions involved in the present revision petition are as under: -

“1. Whether the decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) can be got executed by the judgment-debtor and consequential satisfaction of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Order 21 Rules 32 and 33 CPC can be recorded?

2. Whether in the present case recording of the decree as satisfied is perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law?

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner – Smt. Maya Devi filed a petition under Section 9 of HMA for restitution of conjugal rights. The said petition was allowed on 10.01.2003 and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of the petitioner. When petitioner filed an execution application for recovery of arrears of maintenance, then the respondent – Kailash Chander/judgment-debtor filed an application before the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, for recording satisfaction of decree passed under Section 9 of the Act in favour of the petitioner. The respondent averred in the application that after passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, he waited for arrival of his wife i.e. the present petitioner for 15 days but she did not turn up to her matrimonial house. Thereafter respondent/judgment-debtor along with his grandfather Kirpal Singh and other persons went to the house of the parents of the petitioner at village Kalupur and asked the petitioner to accompany the respondent but she refused. They came back and again the petitioner was requested to accompany the respondent and take care of the children but she did not bother. It was alleged in the execution application that respondent/judgment-debtor was ready and willing to keep the petitioner with him as his wife. Instead of joining the respondent she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance just to harass the judgment-debtor. Thereafter the application was presented by the judgment-debtor with a request for recording satisfaction of the decree passed under Section 9 of HMA.

4. On notice, the petitioner appeared before the executing Court and contested the application by filing reply to the effect that her husband/respondent/judgment-debtor is a person of bad habits. He used to beat her. Neither the respondent nor his grandfather or any other person of his family went to her village as alleged and the execution application has been filed on false grounds just to frustrate the petitioner’s right of maintenance and even the maintenance to the extent of Rs.11800/-, which was awarded by the Court at the time of deciding the petition under Section 9 of the Act, was not paid to the petitioner. It was also specifically pleaded that respondent/judgment-debtor had contracted a second marriage with Jai Wanti and it has become difficult for the petitioner to live with the respondent. Coupled with his behavior, she has reasonable excuse to withdraw from his society and the stand taken by the respondent to the contrary was controverted by the petitioner/decree-holder.

5. In pursuance of the pleadings of the parties, executing Court framed the following issues: -

“1. Whether the decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of D.H. has been satisfied? OPJD

2. Whether the present application is not maintainable in the present form? OPDH

3. Relief.”

6. In order to support her claim, petitioner appeared as RW-1 and also examined Jogi Ram and Raj Kumar as RW-2 and RW-3,