(1) CRI. WP. 388.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 388 OF 2010 Shaikh Jamil S/o Shaikh Ayyub Patel .. Petitioner VERSUS Yasmin w/o Shaikh Jamil Patel and anr. .. Respondents ... Mr. S.P. Tilve, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Z.M. Pathan, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.S. Sayyad, Advocate for the respondents ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 20TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The Petition is filed challenging the Distress Warrant issued in Execution Proceedings of Misc. Civil Application no. 176 of 2009 and Misc. Application no.155 of 2008. The petitioner is husband of the respondent no.1 and father of the respondent no.2. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondents were granted maintenance allowance in proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal (2) CRI. WP. 388.2010 Procedure (Misc. Civil Application no.243 of 2007). The respondents filed Execution Application under section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sought execution of the order of maintenance allowance. The maintenance allowance due and claimed as on 11.6.2008 was of Rs.10,850/- and Rs.12,000/- as on 18.7.2009. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that he paid Rs.2,25,000/- to the respondents as permanent alimony by lumpsum in pursuance to compromise and respondent no.1 executed the receipt on bond paper of Rs.50/- on 31.3.2009. It is for such a reason that the petitioner urged before the learned Magistrate that he is not liable to pay and search warrant issued against him is required to be cancelled. 4. The petitioner also filed Application under section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of the maintenance order and revocation of the order to issue the Distress Warrant. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Writ Petition is restricted to the (3) CRI. WP. 388.2010 order pertaining to issuance of Distress Warrant. The learned Advocate submits that he has also filed Application seeking stay to the issuance of the Distress Warrant. 6. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and on consideration of the nature of the dispute, it may be said that the petitioner seeks to rely upon certain compromise which was effected outside the Court. Based on common knowledge that the proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are quasi civil and quasi criminal, needless to say the recovery proceedings also cannot be regarded as only of criminal nature. If there is adjustment or satisfaction of the decree or order rendered by the Court, in the context of liability to pay maintenance allowance, ordinarily procedure to be followed is to get certification under Order 21 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court is not under obligation to recognize uncertified payments. The petitioner cannot make capital of the so called receipt in order to stall the execution proceedings. It is true that he claims (4) CRI. WP. 388.2010 to have paid the amount in pursuance to the compromise which has taken place outside the Court and may be required to prove such fact by adducing necessary evidence. The issuance of Distress Warrant however, cannot be stalled only because the petitioner has claimed immunity from liability to pay and has produced such a receipt. This is not a proved document nor is recognized payment. Under these circumstances, the Petition is not worth the name. 7. In the result, the Petition is dismissed. However, the amount recovered from the petitioner be invested in the name of the respondent no.1 and be not disbursed to the respondents for a period of six (6) months and in the meanwhile, the claim put forth by the petitioner may be decided on its own merits by the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp