SANGEETA Vs. NUTESH SAURABH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.09.2015, passed by learned Addl. Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, in Misc. case no. 26 of 2014 (arising out of execution case no. 3 of 2013) Nutesh Saurabh vs Smt. Sangeeta, arising out of main case no. 89 of 2011, Nutesh Saurabh vs Smt. Sangeeta, whereby the objection filed by the respondent husband under Section 47 CPC has been allowed and the execution application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that learned Addl. Judge, Family Court, Roorkee erred in law and failed to appreciate that an executing court is not an appellate court. An executing court cannot set aside the order which is sought to be executed. The order sought to be executed provides that the respondent shall pay monthly maintenance to the petitioner wife. Curiously, the executing court, by means of impugned order, has held that the petitioner wife is not entitled to maintenance.

(3.) Order impugned will indicate that Addl. Judge, Family Court, Roorkee was to enforce order dated 01.12.2012, passed in favour of wife in proceedings under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. Order passed by the Addl. Judge, Family Court on 01.12.2012 has not been challenged before any superior court. There is no stay against that. At least, no document has been filed to show that order dated 01.12.2012, has been stayed by any superior court.