C.R. No. 3777 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3777 of 2009 Date of Decision : 4.9.2009 Smt. Chameli .......... Petitioner Versus Sube Singh ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Brijeshwar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Tyagi, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 17.4.2009, passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak acting as Presiding Officer of the Lok Adalat vide which the petition filed by the petitioner for execution of an order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been ordered to be disposed of with the consent of the parties. The order passed by the Lok Adalat reads as under :- “1. Present maintenance petition No. 461 dated 3.6.2008 of the court of Ld. ACJM, Rohtak has been received on reference. 2. Petitioner ha s claimed maintenance amount of Rs. 14,400/- for the period December 2004 to November 2007 @ Rs. C.R. No. 3777 of 2009 2 400/- per month. 3. Decree holder has placed on file exhibit PX statement of the Panipat Primary Cooperative agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Panipat of its Bapoli branch, exhibit CY affidavit in support of this statement and exhibit CZ copy of the order dated 7.2.2009 of the court of Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division ) Sonepat. 4. In light of the record, a joint statement exhibit CA has been got recorded to the effect that originally the maintenance was Rs. 400/- per month and then firstly it was raised to Rs. 1500/- per month and then it was further raised to Rs. 2200/- per month by the Hon'ble High Court and that this amount @ Rs. 2200/- per month has been paid for the period December 2004 to November 2007 as well and that counsel of the parties had made statement to that effect in the court of Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division ) Sonepat and accordingly the order dated 7.2.2009 was passed by the court and that the execution petition was filed as fully satisfied. 5. Accordingly, the present petition in the circumstances is admitted as having become infructuous and as such this petition is hereby disposed off as not pressed further as the same having become infructuous. 6. Record of the case be returned to the Trial C.R. No. 3777 of 2009 3 Court which shall be supplying the certified copies of this award and statement CA to parties free of cost under rules.” The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, the petitioner had not given consent to the passing of this order, therefore, the Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to pass an order, and furthermore no maintenance was paid, as mentioned in the order. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the statement referred to in the order was with regard to the maintenance, which was paid to her at Sonepat, in a case filed under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, and no maintenance has been paid under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Notice of motion was issued. The learned counsel for the respondent has contested this petition on the plea that, the order passed is just and fair, as maintenance frixed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act was paid and no maintenance, therefore, was payable under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Krishan Lal Vs. Smt. Ram Piari & Ors. 1997(1) CCJ 477, wherein this Court was pleased to lay down as under :- “12.The learned Single Judge concluding the matter as under :- “In the result, I hold that the Magistrate was right in holding that the order passed in the M.C. 7 of 1957 did not stand C.R. No. 3777 of 2009 4 automatically wiped out as a result of the civil Court decree. He was therefore, right in refusing to cancel the order passed in M.C. 7 of 1957. But, if any enforcement of that order is prayed for concurrently with execution of the civil court's decree, he will not be exercising his discretion judicially, if he orders enforcement except, under circumstances which I have already enumerated in this order, viz. In case of insolvency or pauperism. Crl. R.C. 1221 of 1991 will, therefore, stand dismissed. From the above conclusion, it becomes clear that there are two orders fixing maintenance i.e. one passed by the Magistrate under Section 125 of the Code and the other passed by a Civil Court regarding the same period, that itself will not wipe out the order of the Magistrate and the Magistrate would be justified in refusing to cancel or vary his order in certain circumstances like insolvency or pauperism of the husband. However, regarding the enforcement of the order passed under Section 125 of the Code concurrently with the order of the Civil Court, the C.R. No. 3777 of 2009 5 Magistrate would not be justified to enforce his order for the same period and he would refer the parties to the civil Court.” The learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shanti Devi Vs. Mathura Lal 1995(3) Latest Judicial Reports 270 to contend that no party should get double maintenance amount passed in separate proceedings. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent are misconceived. This Court in the case of Krishan Lal Vs. Smt. Ram Piari & Ors. ( supra ) was pleased to lay down that maintenance fixed under the Criminal Court has to be executed by the Criminal Court, whereas the maintenance fixed under the Civil Court has to be executed by the Civil Court and these can not be consolidated. Similarly, in the case of Shanti Devi Vs. Mathura Lal ( supra ) the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the revision filed against an order vide which the Additional Sessions Judge had ordered the adjustment of amount granted by the Magistrate in other proceedings. The authorities relied, therefore, can be of no help to the respondent, as both orders passed are executable. The learned counsel for the respondent also raised objection to the maintainability of this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that, the order was passed by the Criminal Court, therefore, this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would have no jurisdiction to entertain the C.R. No. 3777 of 2009 6 present revision against the order impugned by the petitioner. There is force in this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. This revision against the order passed on criminal side is not competent. The impugned order was passed in execution application, on an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. “Dismissed as not competent”. However, this order shall not debar the petitioner from seeking his remedy under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with law, if so advised. 4.9.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE