JUDGMENT

Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - The challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is to the order dated 4.10.2019 (Annex P-7) and the order dated 29.11.2019 (Annex P-14) passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana alleging them to be unsustainable and contrary to law in Order XXI, Rule 37 CPC r/w Section 151 of the CPC. The prayer is for quashing both the orders issuing warrants of imprisonment in execution proceedings for recovery of maintenance.

2. During the course of hearing Mr. Aalok Jagga for the petitioner and Mr. Naveen Sharma for the caveator at length, on reading the impugned orders and connected orders passed in the execution proceedings [photocopies of which have been produced by Mr. Jagga and are taken on record with no objection from opposite side being judicial orders] and upon perusal of the papers on file, this Court is called upon to critically review; Firstly, the short order dated 4.10.2019 and Secondly, the long order dated 29.11.2019, which both are in my opinion not only patently illegal and improper but are also perverse in the draconian exercise of power to imprison the petitioner which is not vested in the Family Court at Ludhiana without following the due procedure in the facts and circumstances of this case. The orders have resulted in evil consequences to the petitioner by the imminent threat extended of being sent to judicial custody/ imprisonment in execution proceedings filed by the first respondent (presently his ex-wife) and her daughter, from her marriage with the petitioner, for payment of arrears of maintenance under an order dated 5.4.2016. The impugned orders have led to a grave miscarriage of justice. This order is passed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case as to the right to arrears of maintenance or its quantification as claimed, as it is tied to pending execution proceedings and, therefore, deserve not to suffer any comment from this Court in the present revision petition, except to say in a limited way that the petitioner has placed on record certain documents depicting that Rs. 3 lakhs has already been paid towards maintenance pendente lite, as ordered by the trial court, which issue will fall to the work of the execution court on remand, if ordered. Petitioner admits that the amount has been paid under Section 125 of the Cr.PC, but says that it is to be adjusted against the maintenance awarded under the collateral provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the HMA).

3. A few broad but narrow facts are retold. Two execution applications bearing No.1625 of 2019 and 1626 of 2019 were filed before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana on 2.8.2019 to implement an order passed by the court in the then pending divorce petition issued under Sections 24 and 26 of the HMA in favour of the respondent granting her the arrears of maintenance [before the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce granted on 15.11.2019 by the predecessor Additional Family Court at Ludhiana in a divorce petition filed by the wife] and in execution of the orders passed in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.PC. Two execution applications were filed by the wife claiming different amounts in them. In execution proceeding case No.1626/2019 taken out by the respondent, the first zimni order in the case passed on 2.8.2019 reads:

'Present: Sh. Sunil Dutt, Adv for Applicant.

***

Execution has been filed. It be registered. Let notice of the execution be served upon JD for 04.10.2019.'

4. The case on being adjourned to 4.10.2019, on which day the following impugned order was passed, which has brought the petitioner to this Court challenging it as contrary to Order XXI, Rule 37 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC and complaining that the order was issued despite improper service of summons on the petitioner leading to the dras