Uma Pati Tiwari vs State of U.P., Smt. Uma Devi and Ram Chandra Tripathi Tiwari

Vinod Prasad, J.—This revision has been filed by Uma Pati Tiwari, the revisionist against an order dated 16.5.2006 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad in Case No. 136 of 2003, Smt. Uma Devi v. Ram Chandra Tripathi. By the aforesaid impugned order dated 16.5.2006 the Additional Principal Judge, Allahabad has rejected the prayer of the revisionist for release of trolley and had directed it to be sold and the sale proceed be given to the wife as reimbursement of her maintenance allowance. The Principal Judge has further held that the court can adopt any procedure to implement its order.

The facts of the case were that respondent No. 2 Smt. Uma Devi is the daughter-in-law of the revisionist Uma Pati Tiwari being wife of his son Ram Chandra Tripathi. There was a dispute between husband and the wife and consequently an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the wife on 4.4.2003 (annexure No. 1). In the said application the wife had claimed maintenance for herself and for her two infant children Kumari Garima aged about 7 years and Kushal Triapathi aged about 5 years. In the aforesaid application Ram Chandra Tripathi son of the present revisionist was the sole respondent. The said application of the wife was registered as Case No. 136 of 2003. The husband Ram Chandra Tripathi appeared in the case and filed his written statement on 4.1.2005 (annexure No. 2). An application for interim maintenance was filed by the wife on 28.3.2005 which was allowed by the Additional Principal Judge, Allahabad vide his order dated 12.8.2005 (annexure No. 3). The Principal Judge Allahabad ordered the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 800/- to the wife and to her two issues totaling to Rs. 2500/-. It transpires that for the recovery of the said maintenance amount the property of the present revisionist was to be attached and therefore, the present revisionist, filed an application on 2.12.2005 before the Family Court that he be not harassed by the police and the police be directed to act in accordance with law. Along with the said application (annexure No. 4) an advertisement and a copy of ration card and family register was filed by the present revisionist. The advertisement/information was dated 15.9.2005 wherein the present revisionist had divested his son Ram Chandra Tripathi and daughter-in-law Uma Devi from all his movable and immovable properties. Along with the said application annexure No. 4 the revisionist had also filed his affidavit before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad. He had also filed the documents regarding the fact that he had purchased the tractor trolley from his own money. The revisionist had also filed a certificate from village Pradhan mentioning therein that the revisionist had five sons and his son Ram Chandra Tripathi and his daughter-in-law Uma Tripathi are living separately since last ten years and there was no relationship between the revisionist and his aforesaid son and daughter-in-law. It transpires from the record that a report was submitted by the police of Police Station Mahesh Ganj, District Pratapgarh that the tractor trolley standing at the door of the revisionist was seized by the police on 2.12.2005 mentioning therein that the husband Ram Chandra Tripathi had also got a share in the said tractor trolley and the present revisionist had not given it in share of anybody and hence the same was being attached. This attachment was done on 2.12.2005 at 6.30 P.M. as the report of the aforesaid police station annexure No. 5 indicates. After the attachment report was submitted by the police the Family Judge has passed the impugned order for sale. Hence, this revision.

I have heard Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi, learned Counsel for the revisionist in support of this revision as well as learned A.G.A. and Sri Harish Kumar learned Counsel for the respondent wife who has filed a counter affidavit of the wife in this case to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the revisionist.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order passed by Additional Principal Judge Family Court dated 16.5.2006 as well as the seizure of the tractor trolley dated 2.12.2005 by the police of Police Station Mahesh Ganj, District Prtapgarh in pursuance of the order passed by the Additional Judge Family Court are absolutely illegal and deserves to be set aside. He contended that the revisionist was not a party to Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceeding and therefore the tractor trolley which belongs to him could not have been attached nor the impugned order of putting it to sale could have been passed by the Additional Judge, Family Court. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionist had purchased the said trolley after getting loan from Bank of Baroda and the said trolley is registered in his own name vide annexure Nos. 6 and 7 to the affidavit filed in support of this revision. Learned Counsel further submitted that the amount of interim maintenance can be released only from the husband or his property and not from the property of any other person including the revisionist. He further submitted that the revisionist much prior to the order of interim maintenance had already divested and separated his aforesaid son Ram Chandra Triapthi and his daughter-in-law Smt. Uma Tripathi from his movable and immovable property and for that purpose he had even published the information in the newspaper the cutting of which was filed before the Additional Judge, Family Court. He submitted that Additional Judge, Family Court without holding any enquiry regarding the said newspaper cutting and the affidavit filed by the present revisionist passed wholly an illegal order by observing that he can realize the said amount of interim maintenance by any means. Learned Counsel further contended that the realization of maintenance amount can be done only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code and not in any other manner against the statutory provisions. Learned Counsel for the revisionist invited the attention of the Court to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. (in short hereinafter referred to refer to as the code). The said Section provides that if any person fails to comply with the order of maintenance, and/or interim maintenance without sufficient cause then the amount of maintenance or interim maintenance can be realized by issuing a warrant in the manner provided for levying of fine from such a person. Learned Counsel submitted that such a person as is used to in Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. refers to only the person who has been ordered to pay maintenance and it does not takes into its purview any other person who is not a party to the proceeding. Learned Counsel for the revisionist further argued that Section 18 of THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 (ACT NUMBER 66 OF 1984) provides for execution of decree and orders. He contended that the said Section 18 does not takes into its purview any order passed under Chapter IX of the Code. He therefore contended that the impugned order be set aside and the revision be allowed.

Learned Counsel for the wife as well as learned A.G.A. contended that Additional Judge, Family Court has passed a legal order as there was nothing on record before him to show that there was partition in the family of the husband and therefore, the trolley also belong to the husband and the same was rightly seized and was rightly ordered to be sold. They further contended that the husband had made all the endevours to delay the proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C. being finalized.

Cogitating over the submissions of the rival sides it is an admitted fact that in this case the dispute is between the son of the revisionist, namely, Ram Chandra Tripathi and his wife Uma Devi. Along with the counter affidavit in this present revision annexure No. CA-2 has been filed by the wife herself which is an affidavit filed by revisionist Uma Pati Tiwari. In paragraph 3 of the said affidavit Uma Pati Tiwari, the present revisionist, had clearly mentioned that his son Ram Chandra Tripathi along with his two issues were living separately since last ten years and for the proceeding last three years they are residing in Katni, Madhya Pradash completely separated form the present revisionist. It is also not denied in the counter affidavit that the tractor trolley which was seized by the police was taken on loan by the present revisionist. The averments in respect of the said loan has been made in paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed in support of this revision coupled with the loan documents which clearly indicates that the trolley in question was purchased on loan by the present revisionist. The registration certificate of the trolley is also in the name of the revisionist and nowhere the name of the son of the revisionist Ram Chandra Tripathi, is mentioned. Thus, it is perceptibly clear the trolley which was seized by the police of police station Mahesh Gang District Pratapgarh, belonged to the revisionist exclusively without his sons having any share in it.

Section 18 of the Act provides for execution of decrees and orders. For the purposes of understanding the controversy Section 18 of the Act it is quoted below:

Execution of decrees and orders-(l) A decree or an order (other than an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) (2 of 1974), passed by a Family Court shall have the same force and effect as a decree or order of a civil court and shall be executed in the same manner as is prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), for the execution of decrees and orders.

(2) An order passed by a Family Court under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall be executed in the manner prescribed for the execution of such order by that Code.

(3) A decree or order may be executed either by the Family Court which passed it or by the other Family Court or ordinary civil court to which it is sent for execution.

A perusal of the said section clearly indicates that so far as execution of decree and orders under the Family Courts Act, the provisions of the Code are applicable as Sub-section (2) of Section 18 specifically provides the said procedure. Under the Code Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. provides that if the amount of maintenance is to be realized then it can be realized by issuing a warrant for levying of the said amount in the manner provide for levying of fine against a person who has been ordered to pay maintenance. Section 421 of the Code provides for warrant of levying fine. It is provided under that Section that a fine can be realized by issuing a warrant for levying of the amount of fine by "Attachment and sale of any movable property belong to the offender or issue a warrant to the Collector of the District authorizing him to realize the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property or both of the defaulter". Thus, from the aforesaid Section 421 of the Code it is absolutely clear that the maintenance amount can be realized by issuing a warrant for levying of the maintenance amount in accordance with Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. of the code read with Section 421 of the Code. A joint reading of the two provisions makes it absolutely clear that no amount of maintenance can be realized form the property of any other person but for the property of the husband in cases u/s 125 Cr.P.C. as it is the husband who is liable to pay maintenance and against whom the order is passed for the same. Thus, from the statutory provision quoted above it is clear that only the property of the husband whether movable or immovable over which he has got exclusive domain can be attached for realizing the amount of maintenance. The property of any other person can not be attached for realizing the said maintenance or interim maintenance amount.

Applying the said principle on the facts of the present case it is absolutely clear that the present revisionist Uma Pati Tiwari has clearly stated that his son Ram Chandra Tripathi and daughter in law are living separately from him. Before the Additional Judge, Family Court also present revisionist had filed the newspaper cutting by which he had given public notice much prior to the passing of the interim maintenance amount that he had divested his son Ram Chandra and daughter-in-law Uma Devi from all the movable and immovable property belonging to him. Under such fact it was the duty of Additional Judge, Family Court to determine by holding an enquiry as to whether the property which has been attached belonged to the husband Ram Chandra Tripathi or not? Without holding such an enquiry and by making a cursory observation that there has been no partition of the property of the third party to the litigation, who is the present revisionist has been attached. The act of the police of Police Station Mahesh Ganj, District Pratapgarh in attaching the trolley of the revisionist vide annexure No. 5 to the affidavit was, thus wholly an illegal act. Before the said property was attached an inquiry should have been done as to whether the tractor trolley is owned by the husband or not? Moreover from the public notice dated 2.12.2005 the husband Ram Chandra had no share in the property of the present revisionist Uma Pati Tiwari.

Further it is baffling to note that Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad had made an observation that he can adopt any procedure to implement its order. This portion of the order smacks of arbitrary exercise of power by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad in the aforesaid case No. 136 of 2003. No court is above law. The Courts are also bound by the statutory provisions and they have to dispense justice within the periphery of enacted statute. The statutory provisions provided for the procedure for realization of interim maintenance amount which could have been realized only in accordance with the said prescribed procedure and by no other method. It is the cardinal principle of law that if a thing is required to be done in a particular manner then either it should be done in that manner or not at all. In the present case the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Allahabad transgressed his power by passing the impugned order, which cannot be allowed to be sustained.

Resultantly, this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.5.2006 passed by Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Allahabad in Criminal Case No. 136 of 2003; Smt. Uma Devi v. Ram Chandra is hereby set aside. The tractor trolley which is detained at the police station which belongs to the revisionist is directed to be returned to the revisionist forthwith. The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad is further directed to get the amount of interim maintenance realized in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.

This revision is allowed with the aforesaid direction.