JAGDAMBA TRIVEDI Vs. NEHA TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has called in question the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 09/05/2019 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Family Court, Bilaspur in MJC No. 43/2019 by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against him for non-payment of the arrears of maintenance amount Rs. 38,000/- awarded against him as well as the ex-parte order dated 22/11/2018 (Annexure A/2) passed by the Family Court in MJC No. 06/2018 granting maintenance to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- per month in favour of the respondent/his wife.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that MJC No. 43/2019 was filed under Section 125(3) of the CrPC in which the petitioner herein appeared on 25/03/2019 and deposited an amount of Rs. 4,000/- and thereafter, the matter was adjourned on 18/04/2019 and again it was adjourned for 09/05/2019. Since, on that day, the petitioner was absent, the respondent herein made a request before the Family Court for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner herein and ultimately, by the impugned order dated 09/05/2019 non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner which is without jurisdiction and without authority of law.

(3.) Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that learned Family Court was absolutely unjustified in issuing nonbailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. He would also submit that if the order passed under Section 125(1) of the CrPC directing for payment of maintenance amount is not complied with, then the procedure prescribed under Section 125(3) has to be followed and for the breach of that order, the concerned Court may issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner prescribed for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any part of each month's allowance (allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be) remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made, and that the warrant for levy of fine has been provided under Section 421 of CrPC and without following the procedure mentioned in Section 421 of CrPC, learned Family Court could not have issued the warrant of arrest directly as the provisions prescribed under Section 421 of CrPC are mandatory in nature which was not followed by learned Family Court, as such, the impugned order dated 09/05/2019 (Annexure A/1) and 22/11/2018 (Annexure A/2) deserve to be set aside.