Interim maintenance orders merge into final orders but do not nullify interim relief, reaffirming the principle established in Puneet Chopra case.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Manisha Batra, J.

The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mansa in case bearing No.CRM/553/2022, whereby conditional warrants of arrest were ordered to be issued against him.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the respondents had filed a petition bearing No. MNT/112/2018 titled as Gurjit Kaur and others v. Baljinder Singh under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the present petitioner on the grounds that respondent No.1 was married with the petitioner on 27.01.2002. Two children i.e. respondents No. 2 and 3, were born out of the wedlock. The petitioner had fallen in bad company. He was a greedy person. The respondent No. 1 was subjected to harassment and cruelty by him on account of bringing insufficient dowry at the time of marriage and on account of demand of dowry raised by them, ultimately, she was turned out of her matrimonial house along with minor respondents. While alleging that the petitioner was running a shop of selling mobile phones and owned other properties and was earning a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from all sources, the respondents had prayed for directing him to make a payment of maintenance amount.

3. Vide order dated 19.03.2019, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mansa directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.15,00/- per month each to respondents No. 2 and 3. The respondents filed petition for execution of the order dated 19.03.2019, since the petitioner had not paid the arrears of maintenance from 31.07.2018 to 31.10.2019. During the pendency of petition bearing No. CRM/193/2021, another execution petition bearing No. CRM/553/2022 had been filed by the respondents seeking recovery of maintenance for the period from 01.11.2019 to 30.11.2022 from the present petitioner. In the meanwhile, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Mansa to whom the petition had been transferred finally decided the maintenance petition vide order dated 04.01.2023 thereby dismissing the petition qua petitioner No.2, who had attained majority and by partly allowing the petition thereby directing the present petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to present respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to the present respondent No.2. The present respondent No.3 was held entitled to receive the amount of maintenance only till the time she attained the age of majority.

4. It is submitted by the petitioner that on receiving notices of execution applications bearing No.CRM/193/2021 and CRM/553/2022, he had filed replies taking objections as to maintainability thereof on the ground that the main petition stood decided and the order dated 19.03.2019, had been merged in the final order passed in the maintenance petition and hence, the above mentioned execution petitions were not maintainable. However, despite the objections so taken in the replies filed by him, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court passed order dated 10.10.2023 in CRM No. 553/2022, thereby issuing conditional warrant of arrest against the present petitioner whereas in an order passed on same day in CRM No. 193/2021, his property was ordered to be put to sale.

5. Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mansa in CRM No.553/2022, whereby conditional warrants of arrest issued against him, the petitioner has filed this petition. It is argued that once the final order dated 04.01.2023 was passed in the main petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the respondents, then the interim orders passed in the same petition automatically merged with the final order and the same had become un-executable. It is further argued that the impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, it is urged that petition deserves to be allowed, impugned order is liable to be se