{"id":1497,"date":"2024-02-16T14:03:03","date_gmt":"2024-02-16T08:33:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1497"},"modified":"2024-07-18T16:06:05","modified_gmt":"2024-07-18T10:36:05","slug":"delhi-hc-holds-that-a-person-who-has-already-having-been-sent-to-civil-imprisonment-cannot-be-sent-to-civil-prison-again-in-execution-of-the-same-decree-for-a-second-time","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/delhi-hc-holds-that-a-person-who-has-already-having-been-sent-to-civil-imprisonment-cannot-be-sent-to-civil-prison-again-in-execution-of-the-same-decree-for-a-second-time\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi HC holds that a person who has already having been sent to civil imprisonment cannot be sent to civil prison again in execution of the same decree for a second time"},"content":{"rendered":"

MOHIET ANAND\u00a0 \u00a0 [<\/strong>Appellant]\u00a0 \u00a0Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0 <\/strong>PARUL ANAND\u00a0 \u00a0[<\/strong>Respondent]<\/h1>\n

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 172\/2022 & CM APPL. 64721\/2022 (Stay)<\/p>\n

(2JB, SURESH KUMAR KAIT and NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA JJ., delivered by NEENA KRISHNA, J<\/strong>.)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family<\/a> Courts Act, 1984 has been filed on behalf of the appellant\/husband against the Order dated 30.09.2022 vide which the appellant\/husband has been directed to be taken into Custody for civil imprisonment on account of non-payment of arrears of maintenance awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as \u201cHMA, 1955\u201d) in the Execution Petition No. 11\/2020.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether a person who has already having been sent to civil imprisonment can be sent to prison again in execution of the same decree for a second time?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the impugned Order dated 30.09.2022 of remanding the appellant\/husband to civil imprisonment is absolutely illegal and perverse in terms of Section 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellant\/husband has already served the maximum punishment of three months as stipulated in Section 58 of CPC, 1908 in regard to interim maintenance Order dated 28.09.2015 and he cannot be sent to jail again for the execution of the same Order. It is further submitted that, while in a proceeding under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Judge can sentence the appellant to imprisonment for each month’s default, the same is not permissible in civil proceedings. Reliance has been placed on the case of Rajnesh v. Neha<\/em><\/strong> wherein the Supreme Court categorically the order of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil<\/a> court as per the provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order 21. It is alleged that the Order dated 30.09.2022 is in direct contravention of Order XXI Rule 11A of the CPC, since there was no Application seeking arrest of the appellant, made by the decree holder\/respondent. Further, there was no Show Cause Notice issued to the appellant before the passing of the Order and thus, the same is liable to be set aside on this sole ground itself. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned Order dated 30.09.2022 of the learned Judge, Family Court passed in the Execution Petition No. 11\/2020, be set aside.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The respondent\/wife appeared through her counsel, though no formal Reply has been filed on her behalf.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court allowed the present appeal and held that, \u201cWe thus conclude that it is the total period in civil prison in execution of the decree in the same suit, cannot exceed three months. Though the decree may be executed in instalments as in the case of maintenance orders, but the decree\/order being only one, arrest can be made as prescribed, for a maximum period of three months. Though the execution petition may be filed for realization of the maintenance that may become due from time to time but that would not give a right to seek further imprisonment beyond the maximum period as prescribed by Section 58 (2) of the CPC. A person who has already having been sent to civil imprisonment for a period of three months, cannot be sent to civil prison again in execution of the same decree for a second time. Further, merely because the judgement debtor had been detained in civil prison for the full term of three months as provided under Section 58 (2) of the CPC, his debt cannot be said to be discharged, which can still be recovered through other means as provided in the section.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MOHIET ANAND\u00a0 \u00a0 [Appellant]\u00a0 \u00a0Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0 PARUL ANAND\u00a0 \u00a0[Respondent] MAT.APP.(F.C.) 172\/2022 & CM APPL. 64721\/2022 (Stay) (2JB, SURESH KUMAR KAIT and NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA JJ., delivered by NEENA KRISHNA, J.)   Facts: The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed on behalf of the appellant\/husband against the Order […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1499,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1497","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1497","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1497"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1497\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2080,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1497\/revisions\/2080"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1499"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1497"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1497"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1497"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}