Nishka Srinivas Veluvali
Published on : December 22, 2021 at 21:05 IST
Delhi High Court has noted that the person has to make his presence at the preferred jurisdiction at the time of application for maintenance against him as per Section 125 of CrPC is required as the fact of execution of the said Order.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh also stated that Section 128 of the Code which considers the procedure for enforcement of order of maintenance has the words as ‘where the person against whom it is made may be and not where he is residing or where his permanent property is.’
The Bench was hearing the Plea that questioned the Order of 28 April 2018 given by the Family Court, Dwarka, New Delhi.
The Petitioner (wife) and the Respondent (husband) got married in 1988 but since 2000 started to live separately. The Petitioner then filed a Maintenance Petition after which the Respondent was ordered to pay Rs. 1000 per month and Rs. 500 per month to the children.
In 2005 on account of settlement between both parties the Petition of 2005 was withdrawn.
However, the Petitioner filed an Execution Petition before the Family Court for the execution of the maintenance Order.
The Trial Court with the Memo of Parties that showed that the Respondent lived in Bihar stated that the Petitioner (wife) can place the Execution of maintenance Order before the Courts of Bihar.
The Delhi High Court showed immense dissatisfaction on the Verdict passed by the Trial Court and stated, “It is unfortunate that the woman and her children have to run pillar to post to avail their rights to which they are entitled under the law of the country. Hence material fact would be presence of the person at the preferred jurisdiction at the time of the application for maintenance.”
Thus, the Delhi High Court Ordered for the fresh adjudication of the Execution Petition keeping aside the old Orders and proceedings.