Advocates:
['Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh', '', 'RAJKAMAL SINGH', 'ANNPURNA TIWARI', 'vicky john', 'BARUN KUMAR CHAKRABARTY', 'B P SINGH', 'ANURAG KHATRI', 'Shikhar Bakhtiyar', 'AMAN YADAV', 'A G']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPCR No.248 of 2019

1.Mrs. Damayanti Chandrakar, W/o Kailash

Chandrakar, Aged About 39 Years

2.Miss. Kunika Chandrakar, D/o Kailash

Chandrakar, Aged About 13 Years (Minor

represented through the Natural Guardian

(Mother)

Mrs.

Damayanti

Chandrakar

(Petitioner No.1)

Both R/o Village Matwari, Police Station

Anda,

Tahsil

and

District

Durg,

Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioners

Versus

1.State Of Chhattisgarh Through Home

Department, Central Secretariat, Naya

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2.Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range,

District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3.Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund,

District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

4.Police

Station

House

Incharge/Town

Inspector, Police Station Mahasamund,

Tahsil

and

District

Mahasamund,

Chhattisgarh

5.Kailash Chandrakar, S/o Rekhulal @ Rekhuram

Chandrakar, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Behind

Rajendra Farshi Udyog, Ward No.01, Shankar

Nagar,

Old

Raipur

Naka,

Police

Station/Tahsil/DistrictMahasamund, C.G.

---- Respondents

2

For Petitioners

Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocate

For Respondent-State Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. AG

Hon'ble Justice Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

22/02/2021

1.

This writ petition has been filed by the

petitioners, the wife and daughter,

respectively, of respondent No.5 Kailash

Chandrakar, that despite maintenance being

granted to them, it is not being paid by

respondent No.5 and is avoiding the

orders/summons/warrants of the Court.

Pursuant to which, this Court has passed

the order on 05.02.2021 directing the

Collector, Mahasamund to file documents

showing the movable and immovable

properties of respondent No.5, which has

been submitted by the memo dated

11.02.2021, in which movable and immovable

properties of respondent No.5 have been

mentioned.

3

2.

In that view of the matter, Mr. Singh,

learned counsel for the petitioners,

submits that in light of the decision

rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter

of Rajnesh vs Neha and another¹, the order

of award of maintenance be executed and the

petitioners be given maintenance by the

respondent No.5 by disposing off his

movable and immovable properties.

3.

The Supreme Court with regard to the

execution of the order of maintenance has

passed the following directions in the

matter of Rajnesh (supra) in para 80 as

under:-

“V.

Enforcement of orders of maintenance

“80. Enforcement of the order of

maintenance is the most challenging

issue, which is encountered by the

applicants. If maintenance is not paid in

a timely manner, it defeats the very

object of the social welfare legislation.

Execution petitions usually remain

pending for months, if not years, which

completely nullifies the object of the

law. The Bombay High Court in Sushila

Viresh Chhawda v Viresh Nagsi Chhawda²

held that:

1

2020 SCC Online SC 903

2

AIR 1996 Bom 94

4

“The direction of interim alimony

and expenses of litigation under

Section 24 is one of urgency and

it must be decided as soon as it

is raised and the law takes care

that nobody is disabled from

prosecuting or defending the

matrimonial case by starvation or

lack of funds.”

(i) An application for execution

of an Order of Maintenance can be

filed

under

the

following

provisions :

(a) Section 28 A of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1956 r.w. Section

18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984

and Order XXI Rule 94 of the CPC

for executing an Order passed

under Section 24 of the Hindu

Marriage Act (before the Family

Court);

(b) Section 20(6) of the DV Act

(before the Judicial Magistrate);

and

(c) Section 128 of Cr.P.C. before

the Magistrate’s Court.

(ii) Section 18 of the Family

Courts Act, 1984 provides that

orders passed by the Family Court

shall be executable in accordance

with the CPC / Cr.P.C.

(iii)

Section 125(3)

of the

Cr.P.