ASHOK CHAND KOTHARI Vs. ALPNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 13.4.2017 passed in MJC No.65/15 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Harda and the proceeding thereof, with regard to recovery of the maintenance amount payable by the petitioner to the respondents on the ground that after a common order passed by this court in criminal revision no. 1344/2008 and 1345/08 on 11.11.2010 and modified by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.1440/2011 by order dated 4.2.2011 the petitioner was only bound to pay interim maintenance Rs.5000/- per month for each of the respondents from 16-1-2008 till 30.11.2010; as in the aforesaid order there is no direction to pay further maintenance amount to the respondents and the order dated 7.7.2008 passed by the Session Judge in criminal revision no. 28/08, whereby the order dated 16.1.2008 passed by the JMFC in MJC No.204/05 was set-aside. Therefore, there is no order for payment of interim maintenance further and the application for recovery of maintenance amount is filed without any ground by the respondents. The amount which was recoverable in compliance to the order of this court dated 11.11.2010 has been paid even excess amount has been paid. Therefore, the proceeding with regard to recovery of the amount be quashed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petition is misconceived and filed in the series of the petitions filed before the Executing court to create confusion. While the matter is very plain as earlier learned JMFC concerned directed to pay interim maintenance amount Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife Alpna and Rs.5000/- per month to the son Anuj by order dated 16.1.2008 which was setaside by the Session Judge, Harda in criminal revision no. 28/08 by order dated 7.7.2008, against which, criminal revision no. 1344/08 and 1345/08 were filed before this High Court which were disposed of by order dated 11.11.2010 in the following terms :-

(3.) Having heard the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, in view of this court, learned Family court has not committed any error in passing the order dated 13.4.2017 that the interim maintenance amount is payable till disposal of the case in accordance to the order passed by this court in criminal revision no. 1344/08 and 1345/08 by common order dated 11.11.2010 and modified the order vide order dated 4.2.2011. The interpretation done by the petitioner on the basis of the order dated 7.7.2008 passed by the Session Judge in criminal revision no. 28/08 is not correct. All the orders of both the courts below have been merged by a common order of this Court dated 11.11.2010 and modified the order vide order dated 4.2.2011, whereby both the criminal revisions have been disposed of regarding interim maintenance in terms of the order. It appears from the record that the petitioner is playing hide and seek by raising groundless objection that in the order of this court dated 11.11.2010 there is no further order to pay interim maintenance which is wrong. Therefore, in this regard, learned Family court has rightly rejected the contention of the petitioner.