09. Ct.29 CRR 3237 of 2026 25.08.2026 Bd. Smt. Joyita Bhowmick -vs- The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Sujit Bhattacharya Mr. Ashok Majumder … for the petitioner In this application petitioner contended contended that she preferred a Misc. Case being No. 24 of 2016 seeking interim monetary relief and the court below by an order directed the husband/opposite party herein to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month for the petitioner and Rs. 1,000/- to her minor son. Since the husband/opposite party avoided to make the said payment in terms of the order and since a total amount of Rs. 2,82,500/- had fallen due so she was compelled to file execution case being Misc. Execution Case No. 34 of 2025. However, the Executing Court by an erroneous recording has mentioned in his order dated 30th July, 2025 that the execution application comes under the provision of 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he issued process against the opposite party no. 2/husband under that section. It is submitted that taking advantage of Court’s erroneous mentioning of the statute in the initial order and thereby issuing process under a wrong section, the husband/opposite party immediate after appearing before the executing court had filed an application challenging the maintainability of the execution proceeding. The said application challenging the maintainability of the application is still pending and the executing court is neither 2 disposing of the maintainability application nor the Execution proceeding and therefore the petitioner who is a hapless lady is suffering a lot in spite of getting the order of maintenance from the competent court of law. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appropriate direction may be passed upon the executing court for early disposal of the execution proceeding as the petitioner is almost under the threat of starvation. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the order dated 30.07.2025 was an order, which was filled up on a previously typed proforma and the court below manifestly without application of judicial mind recorded that the execution proceeding has arisen from an order passed in a proceeding under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. instead of recording that the execution case has arisen from a Domestic Violence Act, proceeding. The opposite party/husband cannot take advantage of such careless, unmindful, erroneous recording of section in the order passed by the executing court and therefore maintainability application filed by the opposite party/husband having no merit stands rejected. The executing court is directed to dispose of the Misc. Execution Case being 34 of 2025 within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. CRR 3237 of 2026 stands disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)