RAMAKRISHNAN T K Vs. C N SUBHADRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the pace of execution proceedings before the Family Courts under Section 125 Cr. PC. be quickened Should warrants both under Sections 421(1)(a) and (b) Cr. P.C. be issued invariably in every case before a sentence of imprisonment is imposed under Section 125(3) Cr. P.C., for recovery of the amount payable Is it the law that the courts, even after being satisfied that the defaulter has no movable or immovable property, must ritualistically issue warrants both under Sections 421(1)(a) and (b) Cr. P.C and wait for the return of both warrants before passing an order imposing sentence under Section 125(3) Cr.PC Do the decisions in Nithiyanandan v. Radhamani 1980 KLT 537 and Kuttappan v. Vijayamma 2001 (3) KLT 451 insist on inflexible adherence to such a procedure These questions of relevance have come up for consideration before me in this RP (FC).

(2.) My experience in this jurisdiction shows that there is lot of avoidable unnecessary delay in the expeditious execution of orders under Section 125(3) Cr. PC and it is hence that I wanted these aspects to be argued in detail. Both counsel have helped this Court to consider these questions. Advocate Mr. K.P. Sudheer was requested to assist this Court as amicus curiae. I must mention that the learned Counsel has been of great help to this Court and has assisted this Court with his in depth research on the subject.

(3.) To the vital and crucial facts first. The 1st respondent herein - the wife, claimed maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. The claim was staked and the petition was filed on 16-07-03. The proceedings was numbered as M.C. No. 64/03. Long later on 30-11 -05, an order was passed under Section 125 Cr. P.C. obliging the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs. 800/- per mensem with effect from 16-7-03. Within one year of the date of the order under which the amounts became due, the respondent/wife filed an application for execution of the order, on 18-8-06 claiming the amounts due from 16-7-03 to 16-8-06.