ORDER

1. By way of the present application, the applicant is challenging the order dated 2.3.2026 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vapi below Exh.10 in Criminal Misc. Application no. 776 of 2025 passed.

2. Learned advocate Mr. H.B. Shethna for the applicant, while referring to the order and the observations made therein, stated that the main petition before the learned JMFC under the the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the D.V. Act”) took about 14 years to decide the rights of the parties in accordance to the reliefs prayed. Learned advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that Criminal Misc. Application no. 776 of 2025 – a recovery petition was filed and the present applicant had moved the Court on 2.3.2026 through the advocate informing the pendency of the appeal against the said judgment, even further appraising the Court that there was likelihood of the order to be delivered on 13.3.2026 and had also informed the Court that on 20.2.2026, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been deposited by way of cheque. Inspite of that, learned advocate Mr. Shethna submitted that the learned Judge had issued a distress warrant for the recovery of the amount of Rs.61,50,000/- from the Bank account and the movable properties of the applicant and in case the amount could not be recovered from the properties, then, to arrest the present applicant and produce him in the Court.

2.1 Mr. Shethna referring to the judgment in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, submitted that after the discussion of all the provisions of various acts in connection with the maintenance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally decided in Paragraph 132 with regard to enforcement/execution of the order of maintenance and has specified that such execution under the D.V. Act should be in accordance to Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act. Mr. Shethna submitted that Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act empowers the Magistrate to direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent – husband, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the Court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent. Mr. Shethna, thus, stated that there is no provision under the D.V. Act to issue distress warrant for the amount to be recoverable from the Bank account or from the movable properties of the husband and stated that the order is bad in law.

3. In view of the submissions raised as well as the facts on record, provisions of law and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra), it becomes apparent on the record that the order impugned is not in accordance to the provisions of the D.V. Act. Further the learned Judge was appraised by an application Exh.19 regarding likelihood of the final order by the Appellate Court and the present applicant had also informed that he had deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 20.2.2026. The learned Judge was required to give opportunity to the parties concerned and was required to wait for the order of the Appellate Court.

4. However, this Court does not want to enter into niceties of the proceedings, as mandated by law, but having considered that the order of issuance of distress warrant is not in accordance to the provisions of Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra), RULE. The prayer in terms of Paragraph 6(b) is granted. Direct service is permitted.