CRM No. M-1567 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-1567 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.03.2009 Smt. Gurbachan Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Rajwinder Kaur & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The present petition has been preferred against the order passed by the courts below whereby property of the petitioner was directed to be attached and warrant of sale issued in execution of an order passed under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. Brief factual background of the case is that wife (Rajwinder Kaur) and son (Gurjot Singh) of Narinder Singh filed an application under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. for effecting recovery of maintenance granted by the court to the tune of Rs.85,800/-. Resultantly, the trial court vide its order dated 18th November, 2006, issued warrant of attachment to attach 1/3rd share of the land standing in the name of Jagat Singh father of Narinder Singh. The trial court issued the warrant of attachment on the basis of an affidavit filed by Rajwinder Kaur wife of Narinder Singh that Narinder Singh had 1/3rd share in the land owned by Jagat Singh. Thus, 1/3rd share of the said land was attached and report CRM No. M-1567 of 2009 2 in this regard was received by the trial court on 4th January, 2007. However, the present petitioner, who is wife of Jagat Singh, filed an application objecting to the attachment. She relied upon a will dated 24th September, 1984 to contend that the land in question has been bequeathed to her. She thus submitted that the attachment could not stand. Her objections were, however, rejected by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhri vide order dated 31st October, 2007 (Annexure P-5). The said order was affirmed by Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide order dated 16th September, 2008 (Annexure P-11). The present petition has been filed impugning the orders passed by the courts below as being illegal and arbitrary. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thoughts to the facts of the instant case. It is evident that wife and son (respondents No.1 & 2 herein) were granted maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. way back on 17th December, 2003. However, having failed to realize the arrears of maintenance, an application under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 15th January, 2004. The husband (respondent No.3 herein) refused to comply with the order. Instead an application was moved by his mother relying upon a will dated 24th September, 1984 to contend that Jagat Singh, father of Narinder Singh had bequeathed his property in favour of his wife, the petitioner herein, and thus there could be no execution against the said property. It is also evident from the record that the present petitioner CRM No. M-1567 of 2009 3 as well as her son Narinder Singh, both were accused in a case under Sections 406, 498 IPC. Both Narinder Singh respondent No.3 herein and his mother, the present petitioner, were proclaimed offenders in the said case. However, the petitioner later appeared and got anticipatory bail. Thus, possibility that the application objecting to execution was filed in collusion with each other only with a view to defeat the order of attachment of property, cannot be ruled out. While rejecting the objections of the petitioner, the trial court passed a detailed and reasoned order which was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar. The revisional court also dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that mother of Narinder Singh had filed the application just to frustrate the execution of the order granting maintenance to wife and son of Narinder Singh. The application was filed relying upon a purported will executed on a plain paper. This apart, the court also noticed that Jagat Singh, father of respondent No.3, had already died and Narinder Singh was one of his natural heirs. The court also came to the conclusion that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were summary proceedings in which the Magistrate was not required to decide the question of title. The court also observed that the will in question had not seen the light of the day for 22 years after death of Jagat Singh. It was not presented by the petitioner to the revenue authorities for entering the mutation in her favour for inexplicably long delay. It is only after the land was ordered to be attached that the will CRM No. M-1567 of 2009 4 surfaced. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the order under challenge. I thus find no ground to interfere in inherent jurisdiction of this court for quashing the orders (Annexures P-5 & P-11). No other point has been argued. The petition is, thus dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE March 18, 2009 'rajpal'