Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sarita Bharti vs Suresh Kumar Bharti @ Suresh Kumar on 28 November, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 748 of 2022
• Smt. Sarita Bharti W/o Suresh Kumar Bharti, Aged About 32 Years R/o
Village Birra, Tahsil Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant.
Versus
• Suresh Kumar Bharti @ Suresh Kumar S/o Late Kirtan Ram, Aged
About 34 Years R/o Vill- Jorapali, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda
Bazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) Present Address- Through Manager
(Personnel) Manikpur Colliery S.E.C.L. Korba, P.O. Korba, District :
Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent
CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent : Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Adv.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 28.11.2022
1. The instant revision has filed by the applicant/wife against the order dated 28.06.2022 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Janjgir passed in MJC No.8/2021 whereby the learned Family Court after directing to deposit the arrears amount of Rs.108000/- has disposed off the execution proceeding without examining the pending arrears.
2. Shri Ravindra Shrama, learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned executing court without examining whether any arrears of maintenance is still pending during the pendency of execution application after depositing Rs.108000/- (One lac eight thousand) closed the execution proceeding by the impugned order which is illegal and not sustainable. He further submits that on 13.08.2019 in CRR No.77 of 2019 the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.5000/- to the tune of Rs.9000/- per month and the arrears of same is still pending. He would place reliance in matter of Smt. Shakila Praveen Vs. Firoz Ahmed reported in 2018 (1) CGLJ 351 and submits that it has been held in the said judgment that there was no need of filing a fresh petition during the pendency of the application under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. for maintenance which has fallen due for the period post application. In such case the reliance was placed in the matter of Shantha alias Ushadevi and another Vs. B.G. Shivananjappa, AIR 2005 SC 2410 and Poongodi & anr. Vs. Thangavel reported in 2013 AIR SCW 5764. He further submits that considering the prayer made by the applicant/wife the impugned order may be set aside or modified suitably.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband would support the impugned order and submits that to the some extent arrears amount has already been cleared however to the some extent it is pending which required to be assessed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments relied by counsel for the petitioner.
5. In Shanta @ Ushadevi (supra), Poongodi (Supra) and Smt. Shakila Parveen (supra), it has been held that there was no need of filing a fresh petition during the pendency of application under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. and respondent/husband is liable to pay entire arrears of maintenance due to the applicant/wife during the pendency of the petition. So, both parties are directed to file an affidavit along with details of total maintenance depsoited till date before the concerned Family Court, and if there is some arrears which has to be paid to the wife, then the respondent/husband shall clear the same within a period of 3 months from the date of this order. However, if the respondent will not comply with the order, the executing court shall proceed as per Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, MJC No.8/2021 of Family Court, Janjgir is restored for necessary compliance as stated above.
6. Both parties are directed to appear before the concerned Family Court, Janjgir on 15.12.2022.
7. With the aforesaid observation, this revision is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay