IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 28.10.2025 Pronounced on: 31.10.2025 AJAY BHARDWAJ .....Petitioner Versus MASTER PRITHVI (MINOR) AND ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. D.S. Matya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Jyotsna, guardian of respondents in person.

****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL , J.

1. Order dated 29.05.2025 of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gururam, in execution application titled “Master Prithvi Raj and Another Vs.

Ajay Bhardwaj” has been challenged by way of a revision petition.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by respondents, minor children of the petitioner and their mother Jyotsna was partly allowed by learned Principal District Judge, Family Court, Gurugram vide judgment dated 28.03.2018. The minor children were awarded maintenance allowance of Rs. 15,000/- each per month besides one time litiga- tion expenses of Rs. 25,000/-. Mother of the minor children, live-in partner of the petitioner was not held entitled to any maintenance. The minor children filed various applications for execution of the Family Court order on

27.09.2018, 31.07.2018, 21.12.2018, 28.01.2019, 07.02.2019.

3. On 17.03.2023, application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. was filed with respect to the unpaid dues of maintenance from January 2020 to March 2023 totalling Rs.11,40,000/-. Reply to the execution petition was filed by the petitioner/father of the minors, raising various objections which came to be de- cided vide impugned order dated 29.05.2025. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram, observed that Judgment Debtor was required to make pay- ment of Rs. 11,40,000/- to the minor petitioners; that there was no stay order operating in the case and ordered issuance of conditional warrants of arrest against the Judgment Debtor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the execution ap- plication under Section 125(3) claiming arrears of maintenance from January 2020 to March 2023 i.e. for more than 03 years was not maintainable in view of the statutory provision and the minor children could not claim the arrears due in excess of 01 year. Since the application was filed on 17.03.2023, arrears prior to March 2022 could not be claimed, nor conditional warrants could have been issued by learned Principal District Judge, Family Court, Gurugram, in respect of the amount of Rs.11,40,000/-. Learned counsel further submits that vide or- der of this Court, Collector Gurugram was directed to attach property of peti- tioner and under compelling circumstances, he was forced to sell out the prop- erty for Rs. 6,00,000/- to clear the arrears of maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-, though actually the value of the property was more than Rs.60,00,000/-. It was urged that the petitioner having already deposited Rs.5,00,000/-, pursuant to order of this Court dated 23.06.2025, impugned or-

der deserved to be set aside.

5. The respondent, who is present in person submits that the petitioner was a man of means and resources and was intentionally flouting the orders of learned Principal District Judge, Family Court, Gurugram, refusing to pay maintenance allowance to the minor children, despite various execution applications filed by them. It was submitted that the application for recovery of the unpaid maintenance amount could not be filed in time on account of a stay order of this Court dated 19.03.2020. Relying upon the judgment of Shantha @ Ushadev and Another Vs. B.G. Shivananjappa 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 796, she submits that the minors were not required to file fresh applications ev- ery time for recovery of the arrears. It was further submitted that the only intention of the petitioner was to deprive the minor children of maintenance allowance and force them to contest litigation after litigation for their rightful dues. A prayer was made for dismissal of the petition.

Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section