A maintenance order under Sections 125 and 127 Cr.P.C can be enforced regardless of whether the respondent resides outside the jurisdiction of the court that issued the order.

JUDGMENT

Revision petitioner No.1 is the wife of the respondent. Revision petitioner No.2 is the daughter born to her in the wedlock with the respondent. The petitioners filed an application seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C before the Family Court, Thrissur, which was transferred to the Family Court, Kunnamkulam, pursuant to an administrative order. As per order dated 13.01.2025, the Family Court, Kunnamkulam awarded maintenance to the petitioners at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner No.2. The petitioners filed execution petition under Section 128 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Kunnamkulam, as C.M.P. (Ex.)

No.116/2025 in M.C. No.118/2023. The Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court made the following notes on the docket of the execution petition:-

“The address of the respondent is not within the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the petition may be returned as per S.147 of BNSS for presenting before proper Court.”

Following the notes/suggestion of the Chief Ministerial Officer, the learned Family Court Judge, Kunnamkulam, ordered the return of the execution petition for presentation before the proper court.

2. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the execution petition before the Family Court, Thrissur. On 06.12.2025, the learned Family Court Judge, Thrissur, passed the following order in the execution petition:

“The decree was passed by Kunnamkulam Family Court. No order passed U/s 39 CPC to transfer the decree before this court for execution. Therefore it is a wrong procedure to execute the decree not falling U/s 47 and 39 of CPC. Hence it is the liberty to file before Family Court, Kunnamkulam to transmit the decree.” (sic)

3. Pursuant to the order passed by the Family Court, Thrissur, the petitioners filed a petition seeking transfer of order/decree to the Family Court, Thrissur. This petition was returned by the Family Court, Kunnamkulam, on the ground that the petition was filed invoking the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Family Courts, the petitioners have approached this Court.

4. This Court appointed Sri. Aditya Rajeev as Amicus Curiae.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent and the learned Amicus Curiae.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae has taken me through the various provisions of the Family Courts Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Amicus submitted that, as per Section 18 (2) of the , an order passed by a Family Court under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, shall be executed in the manner prescribed for the execution of such order by that Code. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that as per Section 125 (3) of Cr.P.C., if any person fails to comply with an order passed under Sub- section (1) of Section 125 without sufficient cause, any Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person for the whole or any part of each month's maintenance allowance remains unpaid.

7. The learned Amicus Curiae highlighted the phrase “any such Magistrate” used in sub-section (3) of Section 125 . The learned Amicus Curiae has taken me to Section 128 of the Cr.P.C. to contend that an order under Section 125 may be enforced by any Magistrate in any place where the person against whom it is made may be, on such Magistrate being satisfied as to the identity of the parties and the non-payment of the amount due.

8. The learned Amicus Curiae