JITENDRA KUMAR CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Budh Ram Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5,6 and 7.

(2.) The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved of the notice issued by the District Inspector of Schools on 29/8/2017 whereby he was required to comply the judgment and order of the Principal Judge, Family court dtd. 16/9/2016 in maintenance case no. 495 of 2008 failing which recovery shall be proceeded with from his salary.

(3.) The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that District Inspector of Schools does not enjoy any authority to act as an executing authority of an order of court of law. He submits that as per maintenance law, proper remedy for the respondent nos. 5,6 and 7 was to apply for execution before the concerned court to get judgment and order executed . The District Inspector of Schools being an education authority could not have terrorized the petitioner to comply with directions of the family court else deduction would be made from his salary. He submits that power can be exercised by District Inspector of Schools vis-a-vis an employee of educational institution in terms of regulations prescribed for under relevant chapter of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Here there being not a case qua service or employment otherwise relating to the petitioner, nor there was any complaint as such, the District Inspector of Schools was not even competent to entertain a private complaint made by of respondent nos. 5,6 and 7 for the execution of the judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi.