# Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mumbai v. Anoop Kumar Modi

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 396
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-18
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 2704 of 2023
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bharat-petroleum-corporation-ltd-mumbai-v-anoop-kumar-modi-49339
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A) The Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227
- Supervisory jurisdiction - The Arbitration and
Conciliation
Act,
1996
-
Section 32
-
Termination of proceedings, Section 36 -
enforcement
of
arbitral
awards,
The
Commercial Courts' Act, 2015 - Section 3 -
constitution of Commercial Courts, Section
10(3) - Jurisdiction in respect of arbitration
matters, Section 16 - Amendments to the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application
to commercial disputes - enforcement of an
award through its execution can be initiated
anywhere in the country where the decree can
be executed and there is no requirement of
obtaining a transfer of the decree from the
Court which would have jurisdiction over the
arbitral proceedings. (Para -14)

Petitioner and respondent had an arbitration clause
agreement - leading to a dispute - led to formation of
an Arbitral Tribunal - Arbitrator awarded respondent
two directions - reinstatement of dealership and
Rs.50,000/- as monthly costs - from termination date
to restoration date - respondent filed two execution
applications before Commercial Court, Lucknow -
objecting on grounds of inherent jurisdiction and
territorial jurisdiction - petitioner's objections were
negated by two separate impugned orders -
challenge of order through present applications.
(Para - 4)

HELD:-
The
Commercial
Court,
under
The
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, had jurisdiction over
the execution proceedings arising from an award
passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996.Court do not find any reason to interfere with
orders of Commercial Court at Lucknow, which
rejected petitioner's objections. (Para -19)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED:-

## Text

396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the district authorities while implementing
the projects of laying public pathways.

4. We leave it open to the petitioners
to take up their grievance before the
District Magistrate as well as District
Panchayat Raj Officer concerned and in
case, any such representation is made
pointing out the defects, the same shall be
looked into and appropriate measures be
taken in this regard at the earliest, failing
which, the petitioners shall have liberty to
make an application in the present writ
petition for further directions, if necessary.

5. With the observations as above, the
instant P.I.L. is disposed of.

6. Let a copy of this order be circulated to
all the District Magistrates, Zila Panchayats and
development authorities and Gram Panchayats.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 396
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.10.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 2704 of 2023
And
Matters Under Article 227 No. 2703 of 2023

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mumbai
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Anoop Kumar Modi ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
SM Singh Royekwar

Counsel for the Respondent:
Girish Chandra Sinha

A) The Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227
- Supervisory jurisdiction - The Arbitration and
Conciliation
Act,
1996
-
Section 32
-
Termination of proceedings, Section 36 -
enforcement
of
arbitral
awards,
The
Commercial Courts' Act, 2015 - Section 3 -
constitution of Commercial Courts, Section
10(3) - Jurisdiction in respect of arbitration
matters, Section 16 - Amendments to the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application
to commercial disputes - enforcement of an
award through its execution can be initiated
anywhere in the country where the decree can
be executed and there is no requirement of
obtaining a transfer of the decree from the
Court which would have jurisdiction over the
arbitral proceedings. (Para -14)

Petitioner and respondent had an arbitration clause
agreement - leading to a dispute - led to formation of
an Arbitral Tribunal - Arbitrator awarded respondent
two directions - reinstatement of dealership and
Rs.50,000/- as monthly costs - from termination date
to restoration date - respondent filed two execution
applications before Commercial Court, Lucknow -
objecting on grounds of inherent jurisdiction and
territorial jurisdiction - petitioner's objections were
negated by two separate impugned orders -
challenge of order through present applications.
(Para - 4)

HELD:-
The
Commercial
Court,
under
The
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, had jurisdiction over
the execution proceedings arising from an award
passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996.Court do not find any reason to interfere with
orders of Commercial Court at Lucknow, which
rejected petitioner's objections. (Para -19)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED:-

1. Beta Exim Logistics (P) Ltd. Vs C.R.W. Co.,
Ltd., 2023 SCC Online Ker 1392

2. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs Abdul Samad &
anr. , (2018) 3 SCC 622

3. St. of W.B. Vs Associated Contractors. ,
(2015) 1 SCC 32

4. Cheran Properties Ltd. Vs Kasturi & sons ltd.
,AIRONLINE 2018 SC 1229
10 All. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mumbai Vs. Anoop Kumar Modi
397
5. Hasmukh Prajapati Vs J.P. Associates Ltd.
,2022 (3) ALJ 166.

6. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs Abdul Samad &
anr. , (2018) 3 SCC 622

7. Cheran Properties Lt. Vs Kasturi & sons ltd. ,
AIRONLINE 2018 SC 1229

8. Beta Exim Logistics (P) Ltd. Vs C.R.W. Co.,
Ltd. , 2023 SCC Online Ker 1392

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard Shri S.M. Singh Royekwar,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Girish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for
the respondent.

2. Both the applications under Article
227 being common in nature are being
decided by means of this common
judgment.

3. The present applications have been
filed
challenging
the
orders
dated
24.04.2023 passed by Presiding Officer,
Commercial
Court
No.2,
Lucknow
whereby the objection filed by the
petitioner resisting the executions filed by
the respondent came to be dismissed.

4. The facts in brief are that in
between the petitioner and the respondent
there was an agreement providing for an
Arbitration Clause and on account of a
dispute arising out of the said agreement,
an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted. The
Abitrator passed an award in favour of the
respondent herein vide award order dated
04.04.2020.
In
the said
award, the
Arbitrator issued two directions to the
respondents;
firstly
directing
for
reinstatement
of
the
dealership
and
secondly awarding Rs.50,000/- as costs per
month from the date of termination i.e.
20.06.2017 till the actual date of restoration
of
the
dealership.
The
respondent,
purporting to enforce the said award filed
two applications for execution before the
Commercial Court at Lucknow being
Execution Case No.185 of 2022 and
Execution Case No.498 of 2022. The said
execution applications were objected by the
petitioner by filing an application mainly
on two grounds; firstly that the Commercial
Court
at
Lucknow
lacks
inherent
jurisdiction to entertain the execution
application; and secondly on the ground
that the court at Lucknow lacked territorial
jurisdiction also. Both the said pleas were
negated by two separate impugned orders
which has led to challenge of the said order
by means of present applications.

5. The admitted facts are that dispute
before the Abitrator was pertaining to
termination of an agreement through which
the respondent was running a petroleum
outlet at Bahraich. The award in question
was delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal at
Lucknow and the execution application was
filed at Lucknow.

6. The contention of the counsel for
the petitioner in brief is that after the
Abitrator delivers the award, in terms of the
mandate of the Section 32 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, all
the abritral proceedings stand terminated.
He further argues that Section 10(3) of the
Commercial
Courts' Act
confers
the
jurisdiction on the Commercial Court in
respect of "all applications or appeals
arising out of the arbitration" under the
provision of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, which after the termination of the
arbitration by virtue of Section 32 would
not include the execution proceedings as
deliberately the word 'Application arising
out of arbitration' has been used under
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 10(3) of the Commercial Courts
Act and thus the Commercial Courts at
Lucknow lacked inherent jurisdiction to
entertain the execution proceedings and
have erred in rejecting the objections filed
by the petitioner to that extent. In respect of
his argument that the Commercial Court at
Lucknow lacked territorial jurisdiction, he
argues that the retail outlet of the
respondent was situated at Bahraich,
although the award was delivered at
Lucknow, it is only the retail sales office of
the petitioner-corporation situated at Gonda
which can restore the dealership of the
respondent in terms of the award and thus,
no execution petition could have been filed
at Lucknow.

7. The counsel for the petitioner
places reliance on the judgment of the
Kerala High Court in case of Beta Exim
Logistics (P) Ltd. versus Central Railside
Warehouse Co., Ltd. reported in 2023
SCC Online Ker 1392 as well as the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Sundaram Finance Limited versus
Abdul Samad and another reported in
(2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 622 as
also the jugement of the Supreme Court in
the case of State of West Bengal versus
Associated Contractors.(2015) 1 SCC 32

8. The counsel for the respondent, on
the other hand, justifies the filing of the
execution proceedings at Lucknow and
argues that in view of the law laid down
and clarified by the Supreme Court in the
Case of Sundaram Finance Limited
(supra) and in the case of Cheran
Properties Limited versus Kasturi and
sons limited reported in AIRONLINE
2018 SC 1229, it is the option of the award
holder to file executions at any place of
their choice. He also relies upon the
judgement of this Court in the case
Hasmukh Prajapati versus Jai Prakash
Associates Ltd. reported in 2022 (3) ALJ
166.

9. In view of the rival submissions as
noted above, this Court is to decide ;

(i) whether the Commercial Court
constituted under The Commercial Courts
Act, 2015 can hear and decide the
execution proceedings arising out of an
award passed under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996?

(ii) whether the Commercial
Court at Lucknow have the territorial
jurisdiction
to
hear
the
execution
application?

10. Firstly dealing with the issue
no.(i) as noted above the contention of the
counsel for the petitioner is that in view of
the scheme of the Commercial Court Act,
2015, Section 3 of the said Act provides for
constitution of Commercial Courts and
Section 10 of the said Act provides for the
jurisdiction
to
be
exercised
by
the
Commercial
Courts
in
respect
of
Arbitration matters. Section 10 of the
Commercial Court Act, 2015 is quoted
hereinbelow:-

10. Jurisdiction in respect of
arbitration matters.-Where the subjectmatter of an arbitration is a commercial
dispute of a Specified Value and--

(1) If such arbitration is an
international commercial arbitration, all
applications or appeals arising out of such
arbitration under the provisions of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26
of 1996) that have been filed in a High
Court, shall be heard and disposed of by
the Commercial Division where such
Commercial Division has been constituted
in such High Court.
10 All. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mumbai Vs. Anoop Kumar Modi
399

(2) If such arbitration is other
than
an
international
commercial
arbitration, all applications or appeals
arising out of such arbitration under the
provisions
of
the
Arbitration
and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) that
have been filed on the original side of the
High Court, shall be heard and disposed of
by the Commercial Division where such
Commercial Division has been constituted
in such High Court.

(3) If such arbitration is other
than
an
international
commercial
arbitration, all applications or appeals
arising out of such arbitration under the
provisions
of
the
Arbitration
and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) that
would ordinarily lie before any principal
civil court of original jurisdiction in a
district (not being a High Court) shall be
filed in, and heard and disposed of by the
Commercial Court exercising territorial
jurisdiction over such arbitration where
such Commercial Court has been constituted.

11. The submission of the counsel for the
petitioner that an execution petition which lies
under Section 36 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act would not fall within the
phrase 'all applications or appeals arising out
of such arbitration ' and as the legislature in its
wisdom, did not specify the enforcement
petition under Section 36 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act while drafting the provisions
of Section 10(3) of the Commercial Court Act,
clearly the intent of the legislature was that the
enforcement petition would lie before a
ordinary civil court defined under Section 2(c)
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
and not before a Commercial Court.

12. The distinction as proposed to be
argued for enforcement provided under Section
36 is excluded from the use of word
'Application' referred to in Section 10(3) of the
Commercial Court Act, is on the face of it not
acceptable as on a plain reading of provisions
contained
in
Section
10(3)
as
quoted
hereinabove, it is provided that other than
International
Commercial Arbitration,
all
'applications' or 'appeals' arising out of such
arbitration under the provisions of the 1996 Act
which would ordinarily lies before any
Principal Civil Court or original jurisdiction in a
district shall be filed in and heard and disposed
of by the Commercial Court exercising the
territorial jurisdiction.

13. The counsel for the petitioner, to
buttress his submission on that point draws my
attention to Section 16 of the Commercial Court
Act to argue that the legislature deliberately, did
not propose any amendment to the provisions
of court of civil procedure with regard to order
21, which is the procedure prescribed for
execution of degrees and this aspect of the
legislature not prescribing any amendment in
order 21, should crystallize the argument raised
by the petitioner. The said argument of the
counsel for the petitioner merits rejection for
sole reason that Section 42 of the Arbitration
Act clarifies that any application under this part
has to be made in a court and thereafter that
court alone shall have jurisdiction over the
arbitral
proceedings
and
all
subsequent
applications arising out that agreement and
arbitral proceedings shall be made in that
court and to no other court. Although
Section
32
of
the
Arbitration
and
Conciliation Act provides for termination
of arbitral proceedings on the passing of the
final award, however, the use of the phrase
any application under this part used in
Section 42 clearly refers to the filing of an
application under Part-I of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act which includes
Sections 36 under which the execution of
award is provided for. Even otherwise, the
execution of a decree is provided for and
can be initiated by moving an application
400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Order 21 thus the word 'application',
refers to in Section 10(3) would include the
application for execution to be filed for
execution of an award in terms of mandate
of Section 36 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act. Thus, for the said
reasoning, the first contention of the
counsel for the petitioner merits rejection
and is accordingly rejected.

14. As regards on the second issue as
raised and quoted above as to whether the
Commercial Court at Lucknow had the
territorial jurisdiction or not. The said issue
has been squarely decided by the Supreme
Court in the case of Sundaram Finance
Limited
versus Abdul
Samad
and
another reported in (2018) 3 Supreme
Court Cases 622 and affirmed in the case
of Cheran Properties Limited versus
Kasturi and sons limited reported in
AIRONLINE 2018 SC 1229, wherein the
Supreme Court had the occasion to
consider the earlier judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of State of West
Bengal versus Associated Contractors
(supra) also and the Supreme Court has
held in paragraphs no.30 and 31 as under:

"30. The reliance which has been
sought to be placed on the provisions of
Section 42 of the 1996 Act is inapposite.
Dr Singhvi relied on the decision in State
of West Bengal v Associated Contractors
20 (2015) 1 SCC 32. The principle which
was enunciated in the judgment of this
Court was as follows:

"If an application were to be
preferred to a court which is not a
Principal
Civil
Court
of
original
jurisdiction in a district or a High Court
exercising original jurisdiction to decide
questions forming the subject matter of
an arbitration if the same had been the
subject matter of a suit, then obviously
such application would be outside the
four corners of Section 42. If, for
example, an application were to be filed
in a court inferior to a Principal Civil
Court, or to a High Court which has no
original jurisdiction, or if an application
were to be made to a court which has no
subject-matter
jurisdiction,
such
application would be outside Section 42
and
would
not
debar
subsequent
applications from being filed in a court
other than such court."

The conclusion of the Court is
in the following terms:

"(a) Section 2(1)(e) contains an
exhaustive definition marking out only
the Principal Civil Court of Original
Jurisdiction in a district or a High Court
having original civil jurisdiction in the
State, and no other court as "court" for
the purpose of Part I of the Arbitration
Act, 1996.

(b) The expression "with respect
to an arbitration agreement" makes it
clear that Section 42 will apply to all
applications made whether before or
during arbitral proceedings or after an
award is pronounced under Part I of the
1996 Act.

(c) However, Section 42 only
applies to applications made under Part I
if they are made to a court as defined.
Since applications made under Section 8
are made to judicial authorities and since
applications under Section 11 are made
to the Chief Justice or his designate, the
judicial authority and the Chief Justice or
his designate not being court as defined,
such applications would be outside
Section 42..

(d) Section 9 applications being
applications made to a court and Section
34 applications to set aside arbitral
awards are applications which are within
Section 42.
10 All. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mumbai Vs. Anoop Kumar Modi
401

(e) In no circumstances can the
Supreme Court be "court" for the purposes
of Section 2(1)(e), and whether the
Supreme Court does or does not retain
seisin after appointing an arbitrator,
applications will follow the first application
made before either a High Court having
original jurisdiction in the State or a
Principal Civil Court having original
jurisdiction in the district, as the case may
be.

(f) Section 42 will apply to
applications
made
after
the
arbitral
proceedings have come to an end provided
they are made under Part I.

(g) If a first application is made
to a court which is neither a Principal
Court of Original Jurisdiction in a district
or a High Court exercising original
jurisdiction in a State, such application not
being to a court as defined would be
outside Section 42. Also, an application
made to a court without subject-matter
jurisdiction would be outside Section 42."

31 More recently in Sundaram
Finance Limited v Abdul Samad 21 (2018)
2 SCALE 467, this Court considered the
divergence of legal opinion in the High
Courts on the question as to whether an
award under the 1996 Act is required to be
first filed in the Court having jurisdiction
over the arbitral proceedings for execution,
to be followed by a transfer of the decree or
whether the award could be filed and
executed straight-away in the Court where
the assets are located. Dealing with the
provisions of Section 36, Justice Sanjay
Kishan Kaul observed thus:

"The aforesaid provision would
show that an award is to be enforced in
accordance with the provisions of the said
code in the same manner as if it were a
decree. It is, thus, the enforcement
mechanism,
which
is
akin
to
the
enforcement of a decree but the award itself
is not a decree of the civil court as no
decree whatsoever is passed by the civil
court. It is the arbitral tribunal, which
renders an award and the tribunal does not
have the power of execution of a decree.
For the purposes of execution of a decree
the award is to be enforced in the same
manner as if it was a decree under the said
Code."

Explaining the provisions of
Section 42 the Court held that:

"The
aforesaid
provision,
however, applies with respect to an
application being filed in Court under Part
I. The jurisdiction is over the arbitral
proceedings. The subsequent application
arising from that agreement and the
arbitral proceedings are to be made in that
court alone. However, what has been lost
sight of is Section 32 of the said Act, which
reads as under:

"32.
Termination
of
proceedings.-
(1)
The
arbitral
proceedings shall be terminated by the final
arbitral award or by an order of the
arbitral tribunal under sub-section (2). (2)
The arbitral tribunal shall issue an order
for the termination of CIVIL APPEAL
No.1650 of 2018 Page 17 of 21 the arbitral
proceedings where- (a) the claimant
withdraws his claim, unless the respondent
objects to the order and the arbitral
tribunal recognises a legitimate interest on
his part in obtaining a final settlement of
the dispute, (b) the parties agree on the
termination of the proceedings, or (c) the
arbitral tribunal finds that the continuation
of the proceedings has for any other reason
become unnecessary or impossible. (3)
Subject to Section 33 and sub-section (4) of
Section 34, the mandate of the arbitral
tribunal
shall
terminate
with
the
termination of the arbitral proceedings."

19.
The
aforesaid
provision
provides for arbitral proceedings to be
402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
terminated by the final arbitral award.
Thus, when an award is already made, of
which execution is sought, the arbitral
proceedings already stand terminated on
the making of the final award. Thus, it is
not appreciated how Section 42 of the said
Act, which deals with the jurisdiction issue
in respect of arbitral proceedings, would
have any relevance.."

Consequently, in the view of the
Court, the enforcement of an award
through its execution can be initiated
anywhere in the country where the decree
can be executed and there is no
requirement of obtaining a transfer of the
decree from the Court which would have
jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings."

15. Yet another interesting aspect is
that the Arbitrator was appointed by means
of an order passed by the High Court at
Lucknow and thus, on that court also the
application can be filed at Lucknow which
has the territorial jurisdiction. As regards,
submission of the counsel for the petitioner
is that the award can be executed only by
the regional office situated at Gonda also
merits rejection as in view of the clear
pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the
case of Cheran Properties Limited (supra).
It is the choice of the award holder to file an
execution at the place of his choice.

16. As regards the judgment cited by
the counsel for the petitioner in the case of
Beta Exim Logistics (P) Ltd. versus
Central Railside Warehouse Co., Ltd.
reported in 2023 SCC Online Ker 1392, the
Court while dealing with the issue although
took notice of mandatory provision of the
Commercial Court Act, however, recorded in
paragraphs 17 and 20 as under:-

17. Thus, if a more expensive
interpretation is given to the word application
falling under Section 15 of the C.C. Act, to
include
execution
petitions
also,
then
necessarily all the execution petitions
pending before all the civil courts falling
within the ken of the C.C. Act will have to be
transferred to the Commercial Courts, which
in turn will clog the special courts with such
matters. Moreover, no practical purpose will
be served by such transfer because the
Special Courts are not conferred with any
additional power than that of the Civil
Courts, to speed track execution proceedings,
as execution proceedings have been omitted
in the schedule attached to the C.C. Act.
Without a faster timeline provided under the
C.C. Act, to enforce an award, it is
immaterial whether the award is executed by
the Civil Court or the Commercial Court.

20. Therefore, the Court of the
District Judge Ernakulam, had gone wrong in
transferring the execution petition which was
not a pending matter at the time of notifying
the C.C. Act. Furthermore, the District Court
has the jurisdiction to entertain the execution
petition because the petitioner resides within
the jurisdiction of the said Court and is a
Court superior to the Commercial Court.
Hence, no prejudice is caused to the
respondent in the execution petition being
decided by the District Court.

17. The interpretation and the scope of
Section 10(3) of the Commercial Court Act
was neither raised nor considered by the
Kerala High Court, thus with reverence, I am
unable to agree with the view taken by the
High Court of Kerala.

18. For all the reasons recorded the
second issue is also decided against the
Petitioner.

19. Thus, for all the reasoning
recorded above, I do not see any reason to
interfere with the orders passed by the
10 All. Smt. Parul Tyagi Vs. Gaurav Tyagi
403
Commercial Court at Lucknow rejecting
the objections filed by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the present applications are
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 403
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.08.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 8162 of 2023
(Criminal)

Smt. Parul Tyagi ...Petitioner
Versus
Gaurav Tyagi ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajiv Sisodia, Sri Virendra Singh Tomar

Counsel for the Respondent:

(A) The Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - The
Code of criminal procedure, 1973 - Section
125 - Order for maintenance of wives,
children and parents, Section 128 -
Enforcement of order of maintenance -
law principle of "coverture" - Husband's
duty to support his wife - treated a
married couple as a single legal entity,
with the husband as head - maintenance
is a constitutional right and an element of
universal human rights - If the wife is
earning, it cannot operate as a bar from
being
awarded
maintenance
by
the
husband - Obligation of the husband to
provide maintenance stands on a higher
pedestal than the wife. (Para - 14
15,16,,44,54)

(B) The Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 141, 144 - Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a
measure of social justice and is specially
enacted to protect women and children
falls within constitution sweep of Article
15(3) re-enforced by Article 39 of the
Constitution of India - Article 136 read
with Article 142 - uniform format of
Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and
Liabilities to be filed in maintenance
proceedings. (Para -25, 38)

(C) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 125 - Maintenance - order of
maintenance may be enforced like a
decree of a civil court
-
Contempt
proceedings for wilful disobedience may
be initiated before the appropriate court -
duty of High Courts to ensure that the
sub-ordinate
judiciary
under
their
supervision follows the law of the land.
(Para - 9, 54)

Petitioner filed an application for maintenance -
remained pending for four years and nine
months - respondent-husband challenger order -
leading to an execution petition - case was
listed 39 times - petitioner-wife sought early
disposal - court deemed it appropriate to create
mechanisms
for
sub-ordinate
courts
(in
background of Rajnesh Case) - to grant
maintenance,
pay
interim
maintenance,
determine maintenance quantum, and enforce
Family Court orders - allow for quicker
enforcement of maintenance orders - prevent
the need for multiple petitions for maintenance.
(Para - 32)

HELD:- Woman can't be denied alimony only
because she is working. Subordinate courts may
differ from higher courts' legal precedents,
leading to confusion and injustice. High Courts
may issue mandatory injunctions to maintain
the integrity of the legal system and ensure fair
and consistent justice across the board, despite
their independence. Rajnesh Case highlights the
importance of comprehensive guidelines for
Family Court Judges to effectively enforce
Supreme Court orders.(Para -44,83,87)

Petition disposed off. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED:-

1. Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs Meena & ors.,
(2015) 6 SCC 353

2. Kusum Sharma Vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma,
(2017) SCC Online Del 11796