The petitioner, who is the judgment debtor in Ex. No.34/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, T.Narasipura (for short, 'the executing Court'), has called in question the executing Court's order dated 22.04.2021. The executing Court has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife, the respondent, in terms of the interim order dated 15.12.2012 in M.C.No.11/2010 without any further delay. The petitioner, in terms of the aforesaid interim order has to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred Only) per month to the respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges the following grounds:
a) The respondent had initiated different proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, and she has withdrawn these applications stating specifically that because of the disposal of the petition in M.C.No.11/2010 against her without specific directions for maintenance, she is not interested in prosecuting the same;
b) The proceeding in M.C.No.11/2010 is disposed of on 05.11.2018 without any orders on maintenance to the respondent. The respondent has called in question this order dated 05.11.2018 before this Court in an appeal in M.F.A.No.597/2019, but without any application for grant of maintenance or complaining for any arrears payable in terms of the interim order dated 15.12.2012. Therefore, she cannot sustain the execution proceedings;
c) The interim order dated 15.12.2012 would not qualify as a decree as contemplated under Section
36 of CPC and therefore, the execution petition cannot be sustained.
3. The merits of these submissions are examined in the light of the undisputed fact that the interim order dated 15.12.2012 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred Only) per month is continued until the disposal of the petition in M.C.No.11/2010 on 05.11.2018 without any modification or variance of this interim order. The petitioner therefore cannot deny the obligation to pay maintenance at this rate to the respondent either on the ground that she has withdrawn certain proceedings initiated by her under Section 125 of Cr.P.C or because she has called in question the judgment and decree in M.C.No.11/2010 before this Court without an application for continuation of the interim order alleging non- compliance.
4. It is settled that a party who has the benefit of an order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance could have recourse to Order XXI of CPC to put such order into execution for enforcement if there is non-payment. As such, the petition stands disposed of but with the observation that if the petitioner is entitled to any deduction towards the amount that may have been paid by him, he shall be entitled to place the same before the executing Court while satisfying the directions issued. SD/- JUDGE
Comments