The court affirmed that maintenance orders under the Domestic Violence Act are enforceable, and execution proceedings can be initiated even without a protection order.

CAV ORDER

1. This revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.184/2017 vide order dated 15.11.2023 rejecting the memo of calculation filed by the revision petitioner and allowing the memo of calculation filed by the respondent herein and also the order passed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.25216/2023 confirming the order of the Trial Court and dismissing the appeal with cost of Rs.25,000/-.

2. The factual matrix of case of the parties is that the respondent had filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the learned Magistrate invoking Section 12 , 19 and 20 of the Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred as D.V Act). The Trial Court passed a residential order restraining the petitioner herein not to disturb the possession of the respondent and directed to pay the rent without committing any default and also directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- and so also passed an order Rs.15,000/- to meet food, cloth, medical expenses and household expenses and also directed to pay the school fee of Rs.60,000/- and declined to pass order on loss of earnings. The said order was challenged before the First Appellate Court by both the petitioner and respondent in Crl.A.No.25104/2010 and Crl.A.No.25116/2010 on the file of FTC-III, P.O and Addl. Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore. The Fast Tract Court upheld the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in a common order dated 30.11.2011 and the same was challenged by both the revision petitioner and respondent before this Court by filing a Crl.P.No.125/2012 and Crl.P.No.1016/2012 respectively. This Court passed common order vide order dated 23.03.2017 by allowing the criminal petition filed by the respondent herein in part, wherein, quantum of monthly maintenance was increased at Rs.40,000/- from the date of petition till the children attains the majority and thereafter, at Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent alone. This order also challenged before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5022/2017 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2017. The respondent also filed a private complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act R/w Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, in Crl.Misc.No.184/2017, for recovery of arrears of maintenance and also for rentals since the respondent moved out from the said premises to other rented premises. The revision petitioner was enlarged in the said case with conditions. An application was filed before the Trial Court for discharge contending that Section 31 of the D.V Act cannot be invoked as no protection order has been passed, the said application was also dismissed vide order dated 01.02.2023. It is contend that Crl.Misc.No.184/2017 is not maintainable and the revision petitioner wanted to settle all the outstanding arrears as per the judgment passed by the Court and accordingly he withdrew the appeal in Crl.A.No.25035/2023 as he was taking all steps to settle the matter in Crl.Misc.No.184/2017.

3. In the meanwhile the respondent filed a memo of calculation dated 12.01.2023 claiming arrears totaling to Rs.45,72,838/- and it is contend by the revision petitioner without deducting the payments already made, the said calculation was filed. The revision petitioner also filed a memo of calculation dated 21.04.2023 whereby he contended that he has already paid Rs.39,17,500/- and outstanding due is only Rs.7,25,847/-. The revision petitioner has deposited Rs.18,00,000/- by a way of D.D dated 27.03.2023 and he is entitled for refund of excess amount of Rs.10,74,153/-. The learned Magistrate having taken note of material and memo of calculation filed by both of them, admitted the calculation made by the respondent and rejected the claim made by the revision petitioner and hence the revision petitioner filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.25216/2023.

4. It is also the case of the revision petitioner th