Arun Kumar Parida Vs Gitanjali Tarai

2 . The petitioner-husband is before this Court praying for quashing of the proceeding: CMA No.02 of 2025 and Execution Case No.64 of 2025 arising out of Crl. Proceeding No.144 of 2025 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur.

¶16

3. The petitioner has received notice in the CMA for appearance on 25.03.2025. Copy of the petition in CMA

¶17

W.P. (C) No.2542 of 2026 Page 1 of 8

¶18

No.2 of 2025 has been annexed to the writ application. Perusal of the said petition indicates that the CMA arises out of Cr. P. No.144 of 2025 filed claiming maintenance to be paid by the opposite party in the said petition-husband in the marriage, U/s.125(2) Cr.P.C. (since repealed and substituted by parimateria provision contained in Section 144 of BNSS, 2023).

¶19

4. The petition U/s.125(2) Cr.P.C. was allowed by order dated 30.07.2019 directing the petitioner herein to pay sum of ₹2,000/-. The amount of ₹2,000/- has been sought to be enhanced to ₹10,000/- per month.

¶20

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties had agreed and filed petition U/s.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent. The said petition was registered as C.P. No.194 of 2022 before the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur. It is further submitted that the petitioner- husband in the marriage has paid ₹2,00,000/- to the opposite party-wife pursuant to the agreement between the parties.

¶21

6. By order dated 23.02.2026 at paragraph-6, the following was directed:

¶22

“6. On being asked whether the said aspect has been brought to the notice of the learned Judge, Family Court giving the details of the payments made to resist the claim of enhancement and if any order has been passed on the said aspect; learned counsel for the petitioner seeks and has adjournment to obtain instruction.”

¶23

W.P. (C) No.2542 of 2026 Page 2 of 8

¶24

7. In response to the paragraph-6 of the order, learned counsel for the petitioner files memo of date enclosing attested photocopy of the orders dated 28.01.2025 to 27.10.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner also produces the certified copy, which is returned. Memo along with photocopy is taken on record.

¶25

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order dated 01.09.2025 to submit that the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur is proceeding in CMA No.02 of 2025. As was submitted earlier, today also it is again and again submitted that the opposite party has ‘suppressed’ that she has received money.

¶26

9. The said submission was earlier recorded in the order dated 23.02.2026. Today also during course of hearing the learned counsel was asked whether the petitioner has produced any evidence or has filed appropriate application in the pending CMA No.2 of 2025 substantiating the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- by him and receipt of the same by the opposite party-wife in the marriage.

¶27

In response, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the application U/s.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed on 26.09.2022 by the petitioner as well as opposite party together. The said application was dismissed on 05.08.2024 for non-prosecution.

¶28

10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Court should not have proceeded in the present CMA in view of the suppression of the fact of filing

¶29

W.P. (C) No.2542 of 2026 Page 3 of 8

¶30

of the proceeding under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶31

11. From the perusal of the available order sheets of the Family Court produced before this Court it is crystal clear that no such plea has been yet taken in the pending proceeding i.e. CMA No.02 of 2025 regarding suppression of any fact particularly payments made, if any, during pendency of the CP No. 194 of 2022 that was dismissed for default on 05.08.2024.

¶32

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner was further required to respond in view of the categorical assertion that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid during pendency of the proceeding under 13-B i.e. between 26.09.2022 and 05.08.2024, whether the learned Judge, Family Court, which was in seisin of the 13-B application i.e. C.P. No.194 of 2022 has recorded in any of its order regarding payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and receipt of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/by the wife. No direct answer is coming from the learned counsel apart from stating that the opposite party ‘has admitted’.

¶33

13. It has to be recorded herein that unless the learned Judge, Family Court has recorded admission of the opposite party regarding receipt of the money or any details of the payments made of Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed by the petitioner herein, this Court cannot countenance the said submission to interfere with the CMA No.02 of 2025 based on bald statements and assertions, more so when the

¶34

W.P. (C) No.2542 of 2026 Page 4 of 8

¶35

petitioner U/s.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been dismissed for default.

¶36

14. In considered opinion of this Court after dismissal of a petition initiated under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the legal consequences from the said dismissal for default cannot be that the Court has to rely upon the statement of one of the parties, that is the husband, that he had paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the wife when no other independent material is brought before this Court nor any order is passed by the learned Judge, Family Court in the proceeding till it was dismissed for default on 05.08.2024.

¶37

15. By the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in larger Bench Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others:(2021) 6 SCC 418 , the Apex Court has directed the judgment to be circulated to all the Courts issuing guidelines for proceeding with execution cases.

¶38

16. The relevant paragraphs from SCC print are reproduced herein:

¶39

“24. In respect of execution of a decree, Section 47 CPC contemplates adjudication of limited nature of issues to execution i.e. or relating discharge satisfaction of the decree and is aligned with the consequential provisions of Order 21 CPC. Section 47 is intended to prevent multiplicity of suits. It simply lays down the procedure and the form whereby the court reaches a decision. For the applicability of the section, two essential requisites have to be kept in mind. Firstly, the question must be the one arising between the parties and secondly, the dispute relates to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Thus, the objective of Section 47 is to prevent unwanted litigation and dispose of all objections as expeditiously as possible.

¶40

W.P. (C) No.2542 of 2026 Page 5 of 8

¶41

25. These provisions contemplate that for execution of decrees, executing court must not go beyond the decree. However, there is steady rise of proceedings akin to a retrial at the time of execution causing failure of realisation of fruits of decree and relief which the party seeks from the courts despite there being a decree in their favour. Experience has shown that various objections are filed before the executing court and the decree-holder is deprived of the fruits of the litigation and the judgment-debtor, in abuse of process of law, is allowed to benefit from the subject-matter which he is otherwise not entitled to.

¶42

26. The general practice prevailing in the subordinate courts is that invariably in all execution applications, the courts first issue show-cause notice asking the judgment-debtor as to why the decree should not be executed as is given under Order 21 Rule 22 for certain class of cases. However, this is often misconstrued as the beginning of a new trial. For example, the judgment-debtor sometimes misuses the provisions of Order 21 Rule 2 and Order 21 Rule 11 to set up an oral plea, which invariably leaves no option with the court but to record oral evidence which may be frivolous. This drags the execution proceedings indefinitely.

¶43

27. This is antithesis to the scheme of the Civil Procedure Code, which stipulates that in civil suit, all questions and issues that may arise, must be decided in one and the same trial. Order 1 and Order 2 which relate to parties to suits and frame of suits with the object of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, provides for joinder of parties and joinder of cause of action so that common questions of law and facts could be decided at one go.

¶44

xxx xxx xxx xxx 42. All courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below mentioned directions: xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶45

W.P. (C) No.2542 of 2026 Page 6 of 8

¶46

42.6. In a money suit, the court must invariably resort to Order 21 Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application.

¶47

42.7. In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The court may further, at any stage, in appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151 CPC, demand security to ensure satisfaction of any decree.

¶48

xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶49

42.9. The court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other expeditious method like appointment of Commissioner or calling for electronic materials including photographs or video with affidavits.

¶50

42.10. The court must in appropriate cases where it finds the objection or resistance or claim to be frivolous or mala fide, resort to sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order 21 as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35-A.

¶51

xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶52

42.12. The executing court must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.

¶53

42.13. The executing court may on satisfaction of the fact that it is not possible to execute the decree without police assistance, direct the police station concerned to provide police assistance to such officials who are working towards execution of the decree. Further, in case an offence against the public servant while discharging his duties is brought to the knowledge of the court, the same must be dealt with stringently in accordance with law.

¶54

42.14. The Judicial Academies must prepare manuals and ensure continuous training through appropriate mediums to the court personnel/staff W.P. (C) No.2542 of 2026 Page 7 of 8

¶55

executing the warrants, carrying out attachment and sale and any other official duties for executing orders issued by the executing courts.

¶56

43. We further direct all the High Courts to reconsider and update all the Rules relating to execution of decrees, made under exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 122 CPC, within one year of the date of this order. The High Courts must ensure that the Rules are in consonance with CPC and the above directions, with an endeavour to expedite the process of execution with the use of information technology tools. Until such time these Rules are brought into existence, the above directions shall remain enforceable.”

¶57

17. In view of the law laid down as noted above, the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur cannot be faulted with in proceeding with the execution case.

¶58

18. In view of the discussions made above, it has to be and it is held that the petition is devoid of any merits and is dismissed.

¶59

Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur to be kept in the records of CMA No.2 of 2025.

¶60

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)

¶61

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Signature Not Verified The 9^th March, 2026/Radha

¶62

Digitally Signed Signed by: RADHARANI JENA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 24-Mar-2026 14:56:51

¶63

W.P. (C) No.2542 of 2026 Page 8 of 8