CRM No. M 2223 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 2223 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.05.2011 Ashwani Kumar ........ Petitioner Versus Bhupinder Devi etc. .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: None for the petitioner Mr. P S Jammu, Advocate for the respondent -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) CRM 22948 of 2011 Learned counsel for the applicant/respondents prays that be may be allowed to withdraw the the present application with liberty to raise the said objection before the trial Court. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. Main case. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the execution application dated 05.09.2009 titled as Bhupindra Devi etc v. Ashwani Kumar, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, District Moga and subsequent proceedings. CRM No. M 2223 of 2010 (O&M) 2 While issuing notice of motion, the following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed:- “Heard. The respondents are alleged to have filed the application for recovery of the maintenance allowance, which was to become due after the date of that application.” Thereafter, the matter was being adjourned from one date to another on one pretext or other. On 06.01.2011, a written request for adjournment was prayed for. On that date, following order was passed. “There is a written request for adjournment. On the written request, it is stated that the opposite counsel has been informed whereas, learned counsel for the respondents states that he is not aware of the same and he was never informed. Respondent is present in the Court. It is further pointed out that the interim maintenance has not been regularly paid. In view of the above, adjourned to 29.04.2011 subject to the payment of cost of Rs.2000/-.” Today, learned counsel for the respondent points out that cost has not been paid till date. Neither the learned counsel for the petitioner and nor the petitioner is present in Court. From the order recorded while issuing notice of motion and the ground raised in the present petition, it is evident that the only ground raised while challenging the impugned order granting maintenance to the respondent is that respondent had filed execution application for recovery of maintenance from 05.09.2009 to 04.09.2010 i.e for the amount which was not due on the date of the application and advance recovery of maintenance amount is not enshrined in Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C and that the CRM No. M 2223 of 2010 (O&M) 3 execution could be filed only for the allowance which becomes due. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out from CRM M 22948 of 2011 that the same was a typographical error and the respondent had moved an application for correction of the date. In the main application, the respondent had applied for grant of maintenance from the period from 05.09.2008 to 04.09.2009 but inadvertently in para 5 of the application, the date was mentioned as 05.09.2008 to 04.09.2010. The respondent had sought correction of the same. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide its order dated 10.02.2010, allowed the application and the necessary correction was accordingly made. Thus, the said mistake stood rectified and the date of grant of maintenance was rectified from 05.09.2009 to 04.09.2010 as 05.09.2008 to 05.09.2009. Thus, the very ground raised herein cannot be sustained. It is further pointed that the following executions are pending before the executing Court and the present petitioner has not made the payment till date. The details of the said execution application are as under:- i) execution application for seeking amount of Rs.10,800/- from 19.10.2009 to 18.10.2010; ii) execution application for seeking amount of Rs.9600/- from 05.09.2008 to 04.09.2009; iii) execution application for seeking amount of Rs.10,800/- from 14.09.2006 to 15.09.2007; iv) execution application for seeking amount of Rs.10,800/- from 01.07.2005 to 30.06.2006; v) execution application for seeking amount of Rs.10,800/- from 04.06.2004 to 04.06.2005; and CRM No. M 2223 of 2010 (O&M) 4 vi) execution application for seeking amount of Rs.6900/- from 15.06.1996 to 15.03.2002. Besides the facts that the petitioner has not made any payment towards the interim maintenance and has also not paid the costs of Rs.2000/- towards the adjournment granted on 06.01.2011 as well as the fact that the only ground raised by the petitioner in the present petition stands falsified, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 17.05.2011 mohan