MAHAPRATAP RUDRA DAS Vs. PRAVABATI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OBJECTION to the maintainability of an execution proceeding before the Family Court, Cuttack having been negatived by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, this appeal has been filed. Skeletal facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows : Pravabati Das (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') moved the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack (in short, the 'SDJM') for a direction to grant maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Cr.P.C.'). She claimed to be the legally married wife of Mahapratap Rudra Das (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant'). According to her, appellant had sufficient means but he neglected and refused to maintain her. She claimed to have married the appellant as back as in the year 1954 according to Hindu rites. Claim of respondent was resisted by the appellant, mainly on the ground that there was no marriage as claimed Learned SDJM allowed prayer for maintenance and directed the appellant to pay maintenance @ Rs. 150 per month from the date of application i.e 24 -4 -1989. A motion was made before learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack alleging appellant's failure to comply with the order granting maintenance without sufficient cause. Appellant was asked to show cause as to why prayer of the respondent for action under Section 125(3), Cr.P.C. was not to be allowed.

(2.) APPELLANT filed objection to the show cause notice, primarily challenging maintainability of the application. It was alleged that since the order under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was passed by learned SDJM, learned Judge, Family Court had no jurisdiction to execute it. Reference was made to Sub -section (3) of Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (in short the 'Act)' Learned Judge. Family Court held that Sub -section (3) had no application because it related to a decree of order passed in a civil proceeding. It was observed that in respect of the order for execution proceeding had been initiated, Sub -section (2) had application. The order passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack is the subject -matter of challenge in this appeal.

(3.) MR . U.C. Mahapatra, learned Counsel for the appellant has urged this Section 18 of the Act had no application to the facts of the present case because the order in respect of which execution proceeding was initiated was not passed by the Family Court. Mr. M.M. Das appearing for the respondent however, submitted that in view of the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the Act, the contention merits no consideration.