HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) No.2968 of 2010 PETITIONER: (Defendant) Narendra Agrawal, S/o Shri Nand Kishore Agrawal, aged about 36 years, R/o in front of the Amar Cinema Sioni, Tahsil Sioni, District Sioni (MP) -Versus- RESPONDENT: (Plaintiff) Smt. Smita Agrawal, W/o Shri Narendra Agrawal, aged about 31 years, R/o through Shri Rajendra Prashad Agrawal, House No.A/84, Karamachari Nagan Sikolabhata, Th. & District Durg(CG) Present: / Shri Vijay K. Deshmuk, dvocate fr the petitioner. Single Bench: Hon-’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, J. ORAL ORDER r . (28—6—201 0) 1. The respondent is the wife :of the petitioner. On her application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,250/- per‘month was passed against the petitioner on 29—11-2008 by the Family Court, Durg. On 24-8-2009, the respondent also moved an application under Section 125 (3) for recovery of maintenance amount of Rs.18,000/— from the date of order, as the petitioner did not pay a single penny to his wife. ln the above execution proceeding, the petitioner filed an application and prayed, for staying execution proceeding on the ground that his application for setting aside ex—parte order of maintenance under Section 126(2) has been filed today i.e. on 15-12-2009, however, his prayer to stay execution proceeding was rejected with an observation that the application under Section 126(2) will be decided on merits by a competent Court and it may take some time and till then, the respondent cannot be denied her right and the petitioner was alloWed a month’s time to pay due amount of Rs.18,750/—, however, as the petitioner was absent on the next date i.e. on 15-1-2010, warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against him on his failure to h A o $3 pay the amount. By the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 15-12-2009 and 15-1—2010. . Shri Vijay K. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was ready and‘wiiiing to pay the amount of maintenance as ordered by the Court. He has also deposited an amount of maintenance of Rs.1,500/-, Rs.1,000/— and Rs. 1,500/— vide Annexures—P/4, P/5 and /6, respectiveiy. In these oircumstances, the orders dated 15-12-2009 P and 15-1-2010 deserve to be set aside. . Heard Iearned counsel for the petitioner. From perusal of order sheet of Annexure-P/3, it appears that when the petitioner did not pay amount of maintenance as ordered by the Family ourt under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., execution proceeding was initiated and the petitioner was allowed time to deposit amount, however, the petitioner instead of complying with the order remained absent and stopped attending the proceeding before the Family Court. ln these circumstances, in the absence of any stay order in a proceeding for setting aside ex—parte order of maintenance, warrant was issued against the petitioner for recovery of the accumulated maintenance amount and ultimately, warrant of arrest was directed to be issued. . After going through the impugned order, l am of the opinion that the rder passed by the Family Court is strictly in accordance with law. here is no illegality, inmmity or jurisdictional error committed by the Family Court in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227g of the Constitution of lndia. Simply by filing application under Section 126(2) of the Cr.P.C. and without any interim order by the competent Cour-t, execution proceeding cannot be stayed. ion di ised 6. The petit is accorngly dmiss. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ’ 'Barve . C o T