IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-35842-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 04.02.2026 Harinder Pal ....Petitioner Vs.

Raj Rani ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Ms. Savita Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gaurav Grover, Advocate with Ms. Charu Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Aditi Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

****

AMARJOT BHATTI, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 13.06.2018 (Annexure P-12) in which conditional warrants of arrest have been issued by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal in CHA/366/2014 dated 05.10.2013 titled “Raj Rani vs. Harinder Pal”.

2. Learned counsel representing petitioner argued that marriage of Harinder Pal and Raj Rani was solemnized on 25.01.1992. It was second marriage of respondent and she was already having three children out of said marriage. Present petitioner denied the factum of marriage as no ceremony of marriage ever took place. He was earlier married to Anita and had taken divorce by filing petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act from Family Court, Muzzaffar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh on 26.05.2008. He was serving as ALM with Electricity Department, Haryana and retired in the month of January 2018. Raj Rani-respondent filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal and said case was decided on 16.09.2015 (Annexure P-1), vide which she was granted maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month along with amount already awarded @ Rs. 2500/- per month in application filed under DV Act. Respondent-wife filed revision petition against aforesaid order and maintenance was enhanced from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month vide order dated 12.07.2018 in Criminal Revision No. 127 of 2015 (Annexure P-2). Respondent-wife was granted Rs. 2,500/- per month towards rent for her residence vide judgment dated 22.08.2013 in application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Annexure P-3). She filed execution petition against petitioner and also filed various applications in the department with prayer not to release his pension and other retiral benefits in order to humiliate him. In fact, he has already paid all dues towards maintenance and under DV Act case. In execution application, she has obtained order for issuance of his conditional warrants of arrest vide order dated 13.06.2018 (Annexure P-12). Learned Executing Court has failed to consider the payment which is already made by petitioner-husband. Even during the pendency of present case, she has received Rs. 5 lacs by way of cheque. Payments made under DV Act case are not considered. Therefore, impugned order dated

13.06.2018 (Annexure P-12) is liable to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel representing respondent-wife pointed out that petitioner-husband has failed to settle his account towards payment of maintenance awarded by Court. Execution application is pending since long. He is making every possible effort to halt execution proceedings. Even in the case in hand, petitioner managed to obtain stay order without disclosing true facts. He is in arrears of maintenance and again at present his conditional warrants of arrest have been issued in order to compel him to clear arrears of maintenance. Therefore, he does not deserve any relief.

4. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. Petitioner-husband has placed on record order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal in petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure P-1) vide which present petitioner- husband was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 4,000/- per month along with Rs.2,500/- per month already awarded in petition under DV Act case. Criminal revision preferred by respondent-wife was allowed vide order dated 12.07.2018 (Annexure P-2) vide which quantum of maintenance was enhanced from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs.