IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-7752 of 2008 Date of Order: 08.04.2008 Raj Singh S/o Sh. Bharat Singh ...Petitioner Versus Amita W/o Raj Singh & another. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J. The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 13.03.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.12.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner against the execution of the order dated 23.11.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was dismissed. In a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance for wife and minor daughter of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate, after considering the material placed on record by the parties, awarded maintenance of Rs.1200/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.800/- per month to respondent no.2. While passing the order, it was directed that the interim maintenance already granted to the respondents shall be adjusted while calculating the amount payable to the respondents. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order granting maintenance challenged the same in revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, where the same was upheld vide order dated 05.05.2005. In execution, the petitioner raised an objections that the learned Magistrate having not recorded any reason for grant of maintenance from the date of application, the same cannot be calculated and granted from the date of application and the same should be considered only the date of order. However, the learned Magistrate rejected the objections vide order dated 24.12.2007, which was upheld in revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 13.03.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide order dated 23.11.2004, the learned Magistrate did not grant maintenance to the respondents from the date of application and once that is not so, the objections filed by the petitioner to that effect were liable to be accepted and the petitioner was only liable to pay maintenance as directed vide order dated 23.11.2004 from the date of order and for any period prior thereto the interim maintenance already paid was final. However, this Court does not find any merit in the submissions made. The Executing Court cannot go beyond the order being executed. On 23.11.2004, the learned Magistrate while awarding the amount of maintenance payable to the respondents, passed by the following order:- “So considering the facts that respondent is Govt. employee whose salary is about Rs.3700/- and he is also having agricultural land in his name, the petitioners are granted maintenance @ Rs.1200/- per month for petitioner No.1 and Rs. 800/- per month for petitioner no.2 i.e. Total Rs.2000/- per month as stated above from the respondent. However, the interim maintenance already paid by respondent to the petitioners during the pendency of the petition shall be adjusted while calculating the amount which is not to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner as maintenance awarded by the Court.” A perusal of the order shows that while granting the maintenance, it was stated that the interim maintenance already paid to the respondents during the pendency of the petition was to be adjusted therefrom. The petitioner even failed in the revision filed against this order. With this finding on record, the petitioner cannot be permitted to state that the order passed by the learned Magistrate granting maintenance from the date of application, without recording any reason therefor in the order, is not correct. Before Executing Court the challenge could not possibly be made to the order granting maintenance which in fact had already been upheld. In fact from the tone and tanner of the order of Magistrate granting maintenance it is clear that the same is from the date of application as direction was given to adjust the amount of interim maintenance already paid out the amount finally determined. Accordingly, even before this Court, the issue on merits regarding the validity of the order granting maintenance cannot be raised. For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is dismissed. April 08, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) nt JUDGE