1 2025:CGHC:56954 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1095 of 2025 Prashant Jha (in person) S/o Shri Rajendra Jha, aged about 34 years R/o Village 39/2, Purana Para-3, Deosara (Pirda), Post- Bhimbhouri, Tehsil Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.)..........(Address is correct as per mention in Aadhar Card) ... Petitioner versus Isha Jha D/o Shri Late Avdhesh Jha/ Smt. Nisha Jha, aged about 30 years R/o Bareth Para Khairagarh, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : In Person For Respondent : Ms. Rashi Tiwari, Advocate Order reserved on : 17.11.2025 Order Delivered on : 24.11.2025 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice CAV ORDER 1. Heard Mr. Prashant Jha, petitioner in person as well as Ms. Rashi Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision petition is being filed under section 19(4) of Family Court's Act 1984 read with Section 438 & 442 of BNSS of 2023 by the petitioner with the following prayers :- (1) It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the case for it’s kind perusal. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 (2) It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 31.07.2025, in the interest of justice. (3) It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased set aside impugned order (Annexure P/2) dated 13.03.2025, in the interest of justice. (4) That, the Hon’ble Court is requested to set aside M.C.C. No. 502/2022 (Annexure P/3) on ground of cruel behaviour of respondent.” 3. Brief facts as reflects from the pleading and documents annexed with the petition are that the marriage between the petitioner (husband) and the respondent (wife) was solemnized on 10.06.2017 as per their rites and customs. At the time of marriage, it was settled between the parties that the wife will continue her studies at Bilaspur as the husband was also in service at Bilaspur. The brother of the husband has also got married on the next day of the marriage of the parties. Immediately thereafter, the husband and his parents have compared the dowry of the husband and his brother and started teasing the wife and started harassing her. The rude behaviour of the husband and his parents would become aggravating day by day but the matrimonial knot between them was started losing. When the wife complaining the difficulties to her in laws, they also asked her to keep silence and not to disclose the same to her parents and pressurizing her to give divorce to their son (husband). Ultimately, the wife was sent to her parents’ house in the year 2019. Even after repeated efforts 3 and making telephonic calls to the husband, he has not taken her back with him. 4. The husband had filed an application before the learned Family Court, Bemetara, for restitution of conjugal rights. In the proceeding of restitution of conjugal rights, the wife shown her willingness to reside with her husband and had also filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for grant of maintenance pendente-lite. The matter was compromised between the parties and the husband has taken her back with him where she resided with her husband for about 02 months. After about 02 months, the husband again started harassing his wife and pressurized her to give divorce to him and he started abusing and beating her. She again came back to her parents’ house and with the intervention of the community members and senior members of the family, the matter was again settled between them, and she again started residing with her husband. When the incident started again, she returned back to her parents’ house and made a complaint to the Mahila Thana, Raipur. During the counselling, the matter was again compromised with the condition that both of them would reside at Raipur and they started residing at Raipur at Professor Colony, at Raipur in a tenanted house. When the respondent wife was again harassed by the petitioner husband, she started residing at hostel at Purani Basti, Raipur and pursued her studies. Due to financial crisis, she left the hostel and returned to her parents at Khairagarh. 4 5. On 20.06.2022, the wife has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before learned Family Court, Raipur, for grant of monthly maintenance amount from her husband. In the application, she claimed that her husband is a medical doctor and employed at Shri Narayana hospital, Raipur, and earning more than Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. He is a visiting consultant at Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and earning Rs. 46,000/- per month. He is having about 20 acres of ancestral agricultural land in his joint family from where also he is getting Rs. 1,00,000/- per year. The applicant (wife) is having no source of her income and she is complete destitute lady and dependent on her mother. She also pleaded that in the divorce proceeding pending before the learned Family Court, Raipur, on her application, Rs. 9000/- per month is granted to her as maintenance pendente-lite but the husband is not paying the same regularly. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, she claimed Rs. 70,000/- per month as maintenance amount from her husband. Along with the application for grant of maintenance, an application for grant of interim maintenance has also been filed by the wife. The application of the wife filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is registered in M.C.C. No. 502/2022 before the learned Family Court, Raipur. 6. In the said case, notice was issued to the husband, and he made his appearance on 20.10.2022 before the learned Family Court, Raipur, and contesting his case. On 28.02.2023, the husband had filed an application under Section 125(1)(d) of Cr.P.C. and raised 5 certain objection against maintainability of the application of the wife. After hearing the parties, on 22.07.2023, the learned Family Court has passed the order and dismissed the application of the husband filed under Section 125(1)(d) of the Cr.P.C. and proceeded in the case for hearing on the interim maintenance application. 7. On 11.09.2023, the interim maintenance application filed by the wife was considered and after hearing the parties, the same was partly allowed and Rs. 20,000/- per month is granted to the wife as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application. The amount of Rs. 9000/- per month, awarded in the divorce proceeding towards maintenance pendente-lite is ordered to be adjusted in the amount of monthly interim maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court in 125 Cr.P.C. proceeding. 8. The order dated 11.09.2023 granting interim maintenance to the wife was challenged by the husband before this Court by filing a Criminal Revision No. 1285/2023, which was came up for hearing on 19.12.2023 and after hearing the husband, the criminal revision filed by him against the order of interim maintenance is dismissed and the learned Family Court was directed to conclude the proceeding of the case within further period of two months from the next date of hearing fixed before it. 9. On 11.12.2023, the wife has filed an application under Section 125 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Raipur, for 6 recovery of arrears of interim maintenance amount which has been registered as M.C.C. No. 1371/2023. The notice was issued to the husband, and he filed his reply in the said case on 02.01.2024 and raised certain objections and prayed that only after deciding his objection, they may proceed with the case however, he has not disclosed in his reply/objection that his criminal revision filed against the order of interim maintenance has already been dismissed on 19.12.2023. The husband submitted in the recovery proceeding (M.C.C. No. 1371/2023) that the wife is not entitled for maintenance for the period from 20.06.2022 to 20.06.2023 and paying the amount for the period from July-2023 to January-2024. 10. Thereafter, on 02.03.2024, the petitioner/husband has filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC before this Court being CRMP No. 620 of 2024 for quashment of the maintenance proceeding of M.C.C. No. 502/2022 as well as the recovery proceeding of M.C.C. No. 1371/2023 and prayed for refund of the amount which has already paid by him to the respondent/wife. The petitioner appeared in person in the said case and argued that :- (1) There is no sufficient evidence produced by the respondent/wife to proceed with the case and for want of sufficient evidence, the proceeding of the case instituted by her is liable to be closed in view of Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. proceeding of the case without sufficient evidence is in violation of principles of natural justice. 7 (2) The application for grant of maintenance amount as well as interim maintenance amount is filed after 37 months of alleged desertion which is highly belated and the application of the respondent/wife is liable to be dismissed. (3) The objection raised by him under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, under Section 125(1)(d) and 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. have not been considered properly by the learned trial Court and dismissed the same without sufficient reason and therefore, there is an abuse of process of law. (4) When the petitioner/husband raised objection and prayed for evidence of the respondent/wife, then without recording evidence of the respondent/wife, the case cannot proceed further. (5) The respondent/wife left the company of her husband without any sufficient cause and the same has not been considered by the learned Family Court. (6) Since, the petitioner/husband has not neglected his wife and she herself is residing separately without any sufficient cause, she is not entitled for interim maintenance. (7) The respondent/wife was having professional qualification and engaged in teaching profession and earning Rs. 9000/- per month, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance as provided under Section 125(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. (8) The objection raised by the petitioner that the warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner on 24.02.2024, for recovery of the arrears of maintenance amount which is in violation of the provision of Section 421 of Cr.P.C. but the same has not been decided. (9) The order of granting interim maintenance amount is passed without considering his objection under Section 125(1)(d) and 8 125(4) of Cr.P.C. There is delay in deciding the interim maintenance application as the same is decided beyond the period of 60 days. 11. After hearing the petitioner at length and perusing the documents annexed with the said case, the same has been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.05.2024. 12. Subsequently, the application of the wife filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. registered as M.C.C. No. 502/2022 has been partly allowed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur vide order dated 21.05.2024 and granted Rs.17,000/- per month as maintenance amount to the respondent/wife which was directed to be payable from the date of application i.e. 20.06.2022. 13. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/husband has filed a revision petition before this Court which was registered as CRR No. 907/2024 and the said revision petition has been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024. 14. In the meantime, the respondent/wife has also filed an application under Section 125(3) of CrPC for recovery of arrears of maintenance amount before the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur on 24.06.2024, which was registered as MCC No. 808/2024 and despite notices being issued to the petitioner/husband in the said case on 02.08.2024, 30.08.2024, 09.10.2024, he could not appear and the notice was received unserved with note “refused to accept it”, hence, on 22.10.2024, 9 the learned Family Court directly issued a levy warrant against the petitioner and on 13.12.2024 issued a warrant for attachment of movable property the petitioner-husband and vide memo dated 20.12.2024, the Station House In-charge of Devendra Nagar, Raipur was ordered to confiscate and sell the movable property of the petitioner. Further, on 13.03.2025, the learned Family Court has sent a notice/ memorandum to the Director of Shree Narayana Hospital, Devendra Nagar, Sector-5, Raipur (C.G.) for direct recover of money and ordered the Director to deduct Rs.25,000/- per month from salary of the petitioner-husband and deposit it in account of respondent-wife and further vide memo dated 31.07.2025, a show cause notice was issued to the Director of Shree Narayana Hospital, Devendra Nagar, Sector-5, Raipur (C.G.) and directed to deduct amount from the salary of petitioner- husband and deposit it in account of respondent-wife as directed earlier, otherwise, it will be amount to contempt of order of the Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband. 15. Mr. Prashant Jha, the petitioner in person, would submit the learned Family Court has committed serious procedural irregularities by failing to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 125(3), 421(1)(a) and 421(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The impugned orders dated 31.07.2025 and 13.03.2025 have been passed without jurisdiction and without authority of law, rendering them arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law, and 10 thus liable to be set aside. He would further submit that the learned Family Court was wholly unjustified in issuing notice to the Director, Shree Narayana Hospital, for direct recovery of money, without first issuing a warrant for levy of the amount by attachment and sale as mandated under Sections 125(3) and 421 of Cr.P.C. The Family Court has no jurisdiction to issue recovery warrants or directions to private institutions without following the statutory procedure. It has been submitted that Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to recover arrears of maintenance only by issuing a warrant for levying the amount in the manner prescribed for levying fines under Section 421(1). The Court may proceed either by attachment and sale of the movable property of the defaulter or by issuing a warrant to the Collector for recovery as arrears of land revenue. Without first issuing such a warrant, no order of recovery, notice, memorandum or direction to any private institute for deduction of salary can be passed. The learned Family Court Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction by directing direct recovery from a private institution and issuing a recovery warrant without following the mandatory steps laid down under Section 421 Cr.P.C., making the orders wholly illegal. He also submits that the respondent is already receiving maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, under which she was awarded Rs. 9,000/- per month and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses, and a total of Rs. 3,92,000/- has been paid over 43 months, besides Rs. 95,000/- paid under the pending Section 125 11 Cr.P.C. proceedings. The respondent is well-qualified, holding degrees in B.E.(IT), B.Ed., D.Ed., and a Beautician course certificate, and is presently employed as a teacher at PMSHRI Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kurud, earning Rs. 21,250/- per month. Being gainfully employed, she is capable of maintaining herself and is not entitled to any further maintenance. True copies of her joining letter and bank statements are filed as Annexure P/5. 16. On the other hand, Ms. Raashi Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent-wife opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable so far as it relates to impugned orders dated 13.03.2025 and 31.07.2025 passed in MCC No. 808/2024 are concerned, as he has not come with clean hands and further he has not replied or objected to the contents/application of MCC/808/2024 (Annexure P/1) (filed u/s 125(3) CRPC for the recovery of pending maintenance amount), in the first instance Court i.e. the learned Family Court at Raipur, where he deliberately has not presented himself and has avoided getting the summon being served in connaivance with his father Rajendra Jha and his employer "Narayana Hospital", Raipur Chhattisgarh. While it is evident from the ordersheet that the service was avoided stating that the petitioner no longer resides in the given address, therefore, the learned Family Court has right passed the impugned orders dated 13.03.2025 and 31.07.2025 passed in MCC No. 808/2024, which do not warrant interference by this 12 Court. She further submitted that so far as challenge to the impunged order dated 21.05.2024 passed in MCC No. 502/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has granted Rs. 17,000/- per month as maintenance amount to the respondent, which is payable from the date of application i.e. 20.06.2022, is concerned, the petitioner has already challenged proceeding initiated in the said MCC No. 502/2022 along with Case No. 1371/2023 before this Court by filing petition under Section 482 CrPC which has been registered as CRMP No. 620 of 2024 and the said petition has already been dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.05.2024 and thereafter, again the petitioner has challenged the final order dated 21.05.2024 passed in MCC No. 502/2022 by filing a revision petition, which was registered as CRR No. 907 of 2024 and the said petition has already been dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide 17.12.2024, and the said facts have been suppressed by petitioner in the instance case, hence, the present petition is non- maintainable on this ground alone and deserves to be dismissed. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 18. It is evident from the record that the application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. registered as M.C.C. No. 502/2022 has been partly allowed by the learned Family Court vide order dated 21.05.2024 and granted 13 Rs.17,000/- per month as maintenance amount to the respondent/wife which was directed to be payable from the date of application i.e. 20.06.2022. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/husband has filed a revision petition before this Court which was registered as CRR No. 907/2024 and the said revision petition has been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024. 19. In the meantime, the respondent/wife has also filed an application under Section 125(3) of CrPC for recovery of arrears of maintenance amount before the learned Family Court on 24.06.2024, which was registered as MCC No. 808/2024 and despite notices being issued to the petitioner/husband in the said case on 02.08.2024, 30.08.2024, 09.10.2024, he could not appear and the notice was received unserved with note “refused to accept it”, hence, on 22.10.2024, the learned Family Court directly issued a levy warrant against the petitioner and on 13.12.2025 issued a warrant for attachment of movable property the petitioner-husband and vide memo dated 20.12.2024, the Station House In-charge of Devendra Nagar, Raipur was ordered to confiscate and sell the movable property of the petitioner. Further, on 13.03.2025, the learned Family Court has sent a notice/ memorandum to the Director of Shree Narayana Hospital, Devendra Nagar, Sector-5, Raipur (C.G.) for direct recover of money and ordered the Director to deduct Rs.25,000/- per month from salary of the petitioner-husband and deposit it in account of 14 respondent-wife and further vide memo dated 31.07.2025, a show cause notice was issued to the Director of Shree Narayana Hospital, Devendra Nagar, Sector-5, Raipur (C.G.) and directed to deduct amount from the salary of petitioner-husband and deposit it in account of respondent-wife as directed earlier, otherwise, it will be amount to contempt of order of the Court. 20. 20. It further transpires from the record that an appeal has also been filed by the petitioner-husband under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, being FA(MAT) No. 41 of 2024, challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2023 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in H.M.A. No. 895/2019, whereby the application under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the petitioner- husband has been dismissed and the said appeal has already been allowed by Division Bench of this Court setting aside the impugned judgment and decree and dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the respondent solemnized on 10.06.2017 by a decree of divorce and the petitioner-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lacs as permanent alimony to the respondent/wife within a period of two months from the date of passing of said order. The said order has neither been challenged by the petitioner/husband nor by the respondent/wife till date. 21. Section 125(3) of CrPC provides for the procedure to be followed for non-compliance of the order passed under Section 125(1) of 15 CrPC for grant of maintenance, which states as under : “125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. (1) XXX XXX XXX (2) XXX XXX XXX (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any part of each month's (allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,) remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made. Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due : Provided further that is such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for doing so.” 22. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision would show that regard to if the the order grant of has been passed maintenance with against a person and he fails to comply without sufficient cause, the Magistrate is empowered to issue warrant for levying the 16 amount due in the manner provided for levying fine and may sentence such person for whole or any part of each month's allowance (allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be) remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made. 23. Section 421 of CrPC provides the procedure for levy of fine which states as under :- “421. Warrant for levy of fine. - (1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may - (a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any moveable property belonging to the offender; (b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter: Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under 17 Section 357. (2) The State Government may make rules relegating the manner in which warrants under clause (a) of subsection (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant. (3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law : Provided that no such warrant shall executed by the arrest or detention prison of the offender.” 24. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that for recovery of the amount of maintenance, procedure under Section 421(1) has to be followed by either issuing warrant for levying the amount due by attachment and sale of movable property belonging to the offender or by issuing a district, amount warrant for as to the authorising arrears of Collector him land to of the realise the revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter. Section 421(3) provides that where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of Sub- section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law. 18 25. A conjoint reading of the provisions contained under Section 125(3) read with Section 421 of CrPC would show that by virtue of Section 125(3) of CrPC, the Magistrate has been empowered to recover the amount of arrears of maintenance by following the procedure prescribed for levy of fine under Section 421 of CrPC. Two modes are prescribed under Section 421 of CrPC for recovery of the arrears of maintenance due as if it were a fine levied. The Court can either issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the defaulter or issue a warrant to the Collector of the District, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter under Section 421(1)(a) and 421(1)(b) of CrPC. It is only after the Magistrate has exhausted the two modes prescribed under Section 421 of CrPC and still fails to recover the arrears of maintenance due that he can sentence the person who committed the default to imprisonment as enjoined under Section 125(3) of CrPC for the prescribed in the above-stated provision and if in the execution of award, the defaulter does not appear to suffer, the sentence so awarded, the Court should at the first instance issue summons/notice for his appearance and if the defaulter seems to be avoiding the summons, the Court in the second instance should issue bailable warrant for his appearance to undergo sentence. The Courts, at first and second instance, shall refrain from issuing non-bailable warrant. 19 26. It is quite vivid that the provisions contained under Section 125(3) of CrPC itself provide that the Court may sentence such a person for whole or any part of each month's allowance after the execution of the warrant, as such, Section 125(3) CrPC speaks only of issue of a warrant for levying the amount in the manner provided for levying fines and does not speak of a warrant of arrest. The issue of a warrant for levy of the amount due by way of attachment and sale is a condition precedent to the sentencing of the defaulter to the imprisonment. As such, without following the procedure prescribed under Section 421(1)(a) and 421(1)(b) of CrPC and without issuance of warrant of attachment and sale, no warrant can be issued and no order for imprisonment can be passed under Section 125(3) of CrPC. 27. In the matter of Jagannath Patra v. Purnamashi Saraf1 , it was held that in the first instance the warrant of attachment of movable and immovable properties would be issued, the properties would be sold and applied for discharge of the arrear due, and if on such steps being taken the arrear amount still remains unpaid, it is open to the Magistrate to issue a body warrant and not until then. The order of the Magistrate issuing simultaneously warrant of attachment and body warrant is not in accordance with law. 28. The Kerala High Court in the matter of Nithiyanandan v. Radhamani2 has clearly held that the powers conferred on the 1 AIR 1968 Orissa 35 2 1980 SCC Online Ker 93 20 Magistrate in this regard have to be exercised in the manner and in the sequence indicated in sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Code. 29. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Karnail Singh v. Gurdial Kaur3 while considering the similar provision contained in the old Code i.e. Section 488(3) of CrPC, 1898, held that in the first instance warrant of attachment of property to satisfy the demand of arrears should issue and only if the whole or any part of it remains unpaid after execution of warrant, imprisonment can be ordered. Therefore, the issue of a warrant of attachment and sale is a condition precedent to the issue of a warrant of imprisonment. 30. Finally, in the matter of Rajnesh v. Neha4, the Supreme Court considered the issue as to the enforcement of orders of maintenance in paragraph 80 and held as under :- “V. Enforcement of orders of maintenance :- 80. Enforcement of the order of maintenance is the most challenging issue, which is encountered by the applicants. If maintenance is not paid in a timely manner, it defeats the very object of social welfare legislation. Execution petitions usually remain pending for months, if not years, which completely nullifies the object of the law. XXX XXX XXX XXX Discussion and Directions on Enforcement of Orders of Maintenance :- 3 1974 CrLJ 3811 4 2020 SCC Online SC 90312 21 - The order or decree of maintenance may be enforced like a decree of a civil court, through the provisions which are available for enforcing a money decree, including civil detention, attachment of property, etc. as provided by various provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order XXI. - Striking off the defence of the respondent is an order which ought to be passed in the last resort, if the Courts find default to be wilful and contumacious, particularly to a dependant unemployed wife, and minor children. - Contempt proceedings for wilful disobedience may be initiated before the appropriate Court. VI. Final Directions :- 81. In view of the foregoing discussion as contained in Part B – I to V of this judgment, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India : (a) XXX XXX XXX (b) XXX XXX XXX (c) XXX XXX XXX (d) XXX XXX XXX (e) Enforcement / Execution of orders of maintenance For enforcement / execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and Section 128 of Cr.P.C., as may be applicable. The order of maintenance may be 22 enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI. ” 31. Reverting to the facts of the instant case in light of the aforesaid legal analysis, it is quite vivid that learned Family Court in the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, finding that the arrears of maintenance is due from the petitioner, has issued a levy of warrant against the petitioner on 22.10.2024 and further on 13.12.2024, issued a warrant for attachment of movable property the petitioner-husband and vide memo dated 20.12.2024, the Station House In-charge of Devendra Nagar, Raipur was ordered to confiscate and sell the movable property of the petitioner and the learned Family Court has further directly sent a notice/ memorandum dated 13.03.2025 to the Director of Shree Narayana Hospital, Devendra Nagar, Sector-5, Raipur (C.G.) for direct recovery of money and ordered the Director to deduct Rs.25,000/- per month from salary of the petitioner-husband and deposit it in account of respondent-wife and further vide memo dated 31.07.2025, a show cause notice was issued to the Director of Shree Narayana Hospital, Devendra Nagar, Sector-5, Raipur (C.G.) and directed to deduct amount from the salary of petitioner- husband and deposit it in account of respondent-wife as directed earlier, otherwise, it will be amount to contempt of order of the Court, without following the procedure laid down in Section 421(1) (a) and 421(1)(b) of CrPC, whereas learned Magistrate ought to have followed the procedure laid down in Section 421 of CrPC for 23 recovering the arrears of the amount of maintenance, and if after following the procedure as envisaged in Section 421 of CrPC by issuance of warrant of attachment of movable and immovable property of the defaulter and sale thereof; still arrears of amount of maintenance remains due, the order of imprisonment can be passed, as such, the order directing issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner is contrary to Section 125(3) read with Sections 421(1)(a) and 421(1)(b) of the CrPC. 32. 32. Accordingly, impugned orders dated 31.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) and 13.02.2025 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the learned Family Court in MCC No. 808/2024 are hereby set aside and learned Family Court is directed to pass fresh orders in view of the observations made herein above and in the light of procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh (supra) strictly for recovery of the amount of maintenance within a period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order after hearing the parties. 33. The petitioner has also called in question the order dated 21.05.2024 (Annexure P/3) passed in MCC No. 502/2022, by which the learned Family Court has granted Rs.17,000/- per month as maintenance amount to the respondent, which is payable from the date of application i.e. 20.06.2022 and the petitioner has already challenged proceeding initiated in the said MCC No. 502/2022 along with Case No. 1371/2023 before this Court by filing petition under Section 482 CrPC which has been 24 registered as CRMP No. 620 of 2024 and the said petition has already been dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.05.2024 and thereafter, again the petitioner has challenged the final order dated 21.05.2024 passed in MCC No. 502/2022 by filing a revision petition, which was registered as CRR No. 907 of 2024 and the said petition has already been dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide 17.12.2024, and the said facts have been suppressed by petitioner in the instant case, though he tried to give some explanation of the same but it is not at all satisfactory, therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to entertain the instant petition so far as it relates to prayer No.4 for same cause of action, which was already the subject matter in CRR No. 907 of 2024 and the said petition has already been dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024, therefore, quashing of the said proceedings challenged as (Annexure-P/3) is accordingly rejected, putting him to strict caution not to misuse the process of law otherwise adverse inference would be drawn against him. 34. Consequently, the instant revision petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Chandra