MAHESH D. YATNALLI Vs. R. SUJATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed in Execution Case No. 38/2024 dtd. 7/2/2025 by the III Addl. Family Court, Bengaluru, the father is before this Court.

(2.) In the order dtd. 7/2/2025, it is observed that the judgment debtor, the decree holder and the counsel present and filed P.F. with request for issue of warrant against judgment debtor through Commissioner of Police. The Court observes that in view of Sec. 56 of the CPC, the Court shall not order for the arrest or detention of a women in the Civil Prison in execution of the decree. Hence, prayer of the advocate for decree holder for issue of warrant against the judgment debtor through Commissioner of Police as prayed in the P.F. dtd. 7/2/2025 is rejected. Further, the Court observes that both the judgment debtor and the decree holder are directed to comply the terms of the decree passed in RPFC No. 104/2022. It is also observed that in spite of giving several opportunities, both the mother and father failed to comply the terms of the decree as well as the terms of the settlement arrived at between them during the pendency of the Execution Petition. Further, the act, behaviour and attitude of parties to the proceedings is affecting the activities of the child. Both the parties to the proceedings are trying to set their scores against each other using the child as pawn, which cannot be permitted. Welfare and well-being of the child is paramount and rights of the parties will not prevail over the welfare and well-being of the child. Hence, if the parties are not in a position to comply with the terms of the decree, both the parties are directed to take steps to put the child in the boarding school, both availing visitation rights to the child.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-father submits that when the compromise decree is violated, he has filed a contempt before this Court i.e., CCC No.203/2023 and that came to be disposed of by order dtd. 15/12/2023. The Contempt Petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the complainant to have recourse for the redressal elsewhere in accordance with law. Thereafter, he has moved this Execution Petition. Learned senior counsel submits that, when there is a violation of the order of the Court and that too in a compromised decree, the Court has to execute the same. Without executing the said order, the Court has passed an order that the child has to be admitted in the boarding school and both the parents have the visitation. It is submitted that as per the compromise, the father is entitled for the 75% of the custody during the visitation and in that regard, the order needs to be passed by this Court. It is submitted that Sec. 56 of CPC has no application in the facts of the case and it exclusively applies to the money decree.