Judicial Magistrates have the authority to issue non-bailable warrants for recovery of maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, and enforcement procedures can follow the Criminal Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking the quashing of the recovery warrant and non-bailable warrant dated 27.10.2023 as well as the entire proceeding of Criminal Misc. Case No. 35 of 2023 (Smt. Beauty Singh @ Avni vs. Rakesh Kumar Singh & others), u/s 31 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "Domestic Violence Act"), P.S. Bisrakh, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending before Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C., court No.2, Gautam Buddh Nagar.

3. The facts giving rise to the present case are that opposite party No.2 had married to applicant No.1, and matrimonial discord between them culminated into the impugned proceeding. Opposite party No.2 filed an application u/s 12 Domestic Violence Act against the present applicants, which was allowed on 15.11.2022 ex parte against the applicants with direction to applicant No.1 to pay the compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh and also Rs. 25,000/-per month as maintenance to opposite party No.2. When the applicant did not pay the amount in pursuance of the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/FTC, CAW, Gautam Budh Nagar, then opposite party No.2 filed an execution application No. 35 of 2023 in which notices were issued to applicants. When, despite service of notice, the applicants neither appeared before the court nor paid any amount in pursuance of the order passed u/s 12 Domestic Violence Act, then a recovery warrant dated 26.6.2023 was also issued against applicant No.1, who is the husband of opposite party No.2. Thereafter on 27.10.2023 recovery warrant along with non-bailable warrant was also issued against opposite party No.1 then in execution of non-bailable warrant applicant No.1 was arrested and thereafter released on bail by order dated 1.12.2023 with direction to pay the remaining amount. In the present case, the applicants have challenged the execution proceeding as well as the order dated 1.12.2023.

4. This matter was earlier taken up on 27.2.2024. On that date, learned counsel for the applicants had submitted that applicant No.1 was ready to deposit the entire amount in easy instalments. Then the court, to test their bona fide, directed the applicants to deposit Rs. 2 lakh in pursuance of the order dated 27.2.2024 before the court below. However, today, instead of paying the remaining amount, the applicants want to contest this case on merit.

5. learned counsel for the applicants contends that he is not challenging the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C., CAW, Gautam Buddh Nagar, u/s 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 of the Domestic Violence Act. However, he is aggrieved by the execution proceeding of that order. It is further submitted that in case of violation of payment of monetary relief passed u/s 20 Domestic Violence Act, the only remedy as per Rule 6(5) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2006") is the procedure prescribed for the recovery of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. which can be initiated only by the family court because as per Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 because it is the family court which is authorised to deal with the matters regarding matrimonial dispute and the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. has no authority to execute the recovery of monetary relief, passed u/s 20 of Domestic Violence Act.

6. Second contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that apart from the recovery warrant, a non-bailable warrant was also issued against the applicants (applicant No.1, not against all applicants), though the Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge has no authority to issue non-bailable warrant because, for the compliance of order u/s 20 Domestic violence Act, the procedure prescribed u/s 31 of Domestic Violence Act cannot be adopted. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon a judgemen