125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 27.10.2025 NARDEV SINGH …Petitioner V/S PARAMJIT KAUR …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Preetwinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J. (Oral)

Prayer in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing order dated 24.09.2025 of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mansa, vide which objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed and he was directed to pay Rs.1,00,102/- to the respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 08.03.2019, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, allowed the application of respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded maintenance allowance of Rs.16,000/- per month. Revision petition challenging the said order was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Mansa on 09.11.2021, whereafter petitioner challenged order dated 08.03.2019 and order dated 09.11.2021 before this Court. Meanwhile, the Executing Court ordered attachment of petitioner’s bank account vide order dated 17.11.2022, which was again challenged in this Court. Later was dismissed. Respondent filed an execution petition for recovery of payment of Rs.1,16,102/-. It is argued that sum of Rs. 18,36,000/- had already been paid to the respondent/wife. The petition challenging the orders dated 08.03.2019 and 09.11.2019 was pending before this Court. Moreover, petitioner had retired and his basic pension was only Rs.27,600/- per month. Therefore, he was not liable to pay the amount of maintenance as awarded in the year 2019. Learned Executing Court illegally dismissed the objection petition ignoring the financial condition of the petitioner and the fact that more than Rs. 18,00,000/- had already been paid. He thus prayed that order dated 24.09.2025 be set aside.

Heard.

Vide order dated 08.03.2019, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, awarded a sum of Rs. 16,000/- as maintenance allowance to the respondent/wife in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The order was affirmed in revision by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mansa on 09.12.2024. Respondent filed an execution application in which salary account of the petitioner was attached and conditional warrants of arrest were issued vide order dated 17.11.2022 and 29.11.2022. Vide order dated 06.01.2023 in CRM-M-59599-2022, operation of the orders was stayed subject to the condition of deposit of 50% of the total amount due within 04 weeks. However, on 10.01.2024, Another execution application was filed by the respondent for payment of Rs. 1,16,102/- as arrears of maintenance form 09.12.2014 to 08.04.2025, wherein impugned order was passed. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mansa, noticing the factum of dismissal of CRM- M-59599-2002 has observed in impugned order that there was no stay of proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,00,102/-. His only claim is that the petitioner having retired, was surviving only on his pension and was not in a position to make payment of arrears of maintenance. Another contention is that petition challenging orders dated 08.03.2019 and 19.11.2021 was pending in this Court. Therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the objection petition.

There is no apparent or palpable error in the impugned order passed by learned trial Court dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner and requiring him to make payment of arrears of maintenance. The Executing Court, as per settled law could not have gone beyond the order dated 08.03.2019, which was required to be executed. Hence, the factum of the petitioner having retired, was not relevant. Though, petition challenging order dated 08.03.2019 affirmed in revision is stated to be pending before this Court, it is conceded that there is no stay order in that case. The arrears of Rs. 1,00,102/- not being disputed, there is no warrant to exercise inherent power