Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P Sectt. Lko. and Others

Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5498 of 2023 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P Sectt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,In Person Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard Sri P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. Kiran Yadav, opposite party No.2, in person and learned AGA for the State. By means of the present application, the applicant has assailed the order dated 24.09.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) FTC/J.M., Faizabad in Complaint Case No. 316 of 2012 (Kiran Yadav & Another vs. Manoj Yadav) as also the order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ist, Faizabad in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2022, Computerized No. 53 of 2022 CNR-UPFZ010066462022 (Manoj Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Others). It appears from the record that an application was preferred under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short "D.V. Act") by the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 namely Kiran Yadav and Kumari Shreya (Wife and Daughter, respectively, of the applicant) and this application was registered as Complaint Case No. 325 of 2016 (Kiran Yadav & Another vs. Manoj Yadav & Others) and this case was allowed vide order dated 20.09.2021 by Judicial Magistrate-II, Faizabad. As per order dated 20.09.2021, the applicant is under obligation to pay Rs. 20,000/- as damages to the opposite party No.2-Smt. Kiran and Rs. 15,000/- to the opposite party No.3-Kumari Shreya, daughter of the applicant and the applicant is also under obligation to pay 1500/- to opposite party No.2 and Rs. 1000/- to opposite party No.3, as maintenance, per month and further, the applicant is also under   obligation   to   provide   rented   accommodation   to   the opposite party Nos.2 and 3. The relevant portion of the order dated 20.09.2021 reads as under:- "परि रवावि दनी‌का‌पቚ ाथቕ रना‌पतቔ ‌अंतगቇ रत‌धारा‌120घरले ू‌कሻ हसा‌से‌मवि हलाओं का‌संरकቌ ण‌अधि ध०,020050स् वीकृ त‌वि कया‌जाता‌ह।ै ‌‌वि वपकቌ ी‌सं०‌‌10‌‌मनोज‌ कु मार‌यादव‌को‌आदेभि शत‌वि कया‌वि क‌वह‌परि रवावि दनी‌को‌कቌ धि तपूरኌ त‌के ‌रू प‌में ‌वि नणरय‌के ‌वि दनांक‌से‌दो‌माह‌के ‌भीतर‌एकमुश् त‌‌20,000/-‌‌रू ०‌‌(‌बीस‌ ‌हजार‌रू ०‌‌)‌0‌तथቕ ा‌प‌‌रि रवावि दनी‌सं०‌‌2‌0‌शቦ ेय‌ा‌,‌0‌जो‌वि वपकቌ ी‌सं०‌‌1‌o‌‌की‌नाबालि लगቇ‌ ‌पुतቔ ी‌ह‌‌,ै ‌0‌को‌एकमुश् त ‌‌15000/-?‌‌o‌‌(‌पंदह‌हजार‌रू ०‌‌) ‌0‌को‌पቚ दान‌कर।े‌ ‌परि रवावि दनी‌को‌पቚ धि तमाह‌भरण‌‌-‌पोषण‌हेतु‌‌1500/-‌‌रू ०‌‌(‌पंदቖ ह‌सौ‌रू ०‌‌)‌0‌व‌ ‌परि रवावि दनी‌सं०‌‌.020‌‌शቦ ेया‌को‌पቚ धि तमाह‌भरण‌‌-‌पोषण‌हेतु‌‌1000/-‌‌रू ०‌‌(‌एक‌ ‌हजार‌रू ०‌‌)‌o‌वि नणरय‌की‌तारीख‌से‌हर‌माह‌दस‌तारीख‌के ‌पवू र‌परि रवावि दनी‌ को‌पቚ दान‌कर।ें ‌इसके ‌अधि तरि रकሹ ‌वि वपकቌ ी‌सं०‌10मनोज‌कु मार‌यादव,0वि वपकቌ ी सं०‌2oजयराम‌यादव‌व‌वि वपकቌ ी‌सं०‌30मनभावती‌उफቛ र ‌जगቇु ुरा‌को‌आदेभि शत वि कया‌जाता‌है‌वि क‌वह‌परि रवावि दनी‌के ‌वि वरू दቍ ‌भवि वष् य‌में‌घरले ू‌कሻ हसा‌कारि रत न‌कर।ें ‌वि वपकቌ ी‌सं० ‌1oमनोज‌कु मार‌यादव‌परि रवावि दनी‌को‌वि नवास‌हेतु वि कराए‌का‌कमरा‌उपलब् ध‌कराए‌तथቕ ा‌उसे‌वि कसी‌भी‌पቚ कार‌से‌पቚ तावि ?डत नहीं ‌कर।ें ‌ इस‌आदेश‌की‌एक‌पቚ धि त‌परि रवावि दनी‌को‌वि नःशुल् क‌उपलब् ध कराई‌जाए‌तथቕ ा‌एक‌पቚ धि त‌संबंधि धत‌थቕ ाना‌मवि हला‌थቕ ाना‌फቛ ै जाबाद‌को‌आदेश के ‌अनपु ालन‌हेतु‌पቚ ेवि षत‌की‌जाए।" The order dated 20.09.2021 was assailed by the applicant by means of Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2021 before the appellate court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Faizabad and the appellate court vide order dated 18.04.2022 affirmed the order of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Faizabad dated

20.09.2021.   The   operative   portion   of   the   order   dated

18.04.2022 reads as under:- "पቚ स् तुत‌आपराधि धक‌अपील‌वि नरस् त‌की‌जाती‌ह।ै ‌वि वदቛ ान‌अवर‌न् यायालय दቛ ारा‌परि रवाद‌संख् या‌325/18,0वि करन‌यादव‌एवं‌एक‌अन् य‌बनाम‌मनोज याव एवं अन्य, अन्त्ቇत धाा 12 घेलू िሻसा से मदिलाओं का सं्ቌण अधिधदिनयम, ्ቕाना मदिला, ्ቕ ाना, ्ቛै जाबा में पारित दिनणय व आे, दिनांदिकत 20-09-21 पु्ቖ दिकया जाता ै। दिव्ቛान अव न्यायालय की प्ቔावली दिनणय की ्ቚधित के सा्ቕ अव न्यायालय को वापस ्ቚेदिषत की जाय।" It further appears from the record that the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 preferred an application for execution of the order dated 20.09.2021, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 316 of 2012 (Kiran Yadav & Another vs. Manoj Yadav) and in this case, an application dated 24.08.2022 was preferred by the present applicant-Manoj Yadav seeking amendment in the final order dated 20.09.2021 passed in the Case No. 325 of 2016 and the same was rejected vide impugned order dated

24.09.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) FTC/J.M., Faizabad after observing that the order passed in the execution proceeding of final order dated 24.09.2022 the same cannot be amended/corrected and by this order the court also directed the applicant to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards rent to opposite party No.2. Operative portion of the order dated 24.09.2022 reads as under:- "As per perusal of order shut and after hearing both parties, order dated 20/09/2021 cannot be amended because the order was on merit and same order was upheld by appellant court as per order dated 18/04/2022. Present suit is only for execution under section 31 to ensure compliance of protection order. As per section 47 of Coder of Civil procedure executing court will not go behind merits of decree, only execution of complete decree is done by executing court. Thus, application dated 24/08/2022 of defendant is rejected. Defendant is directed toe ensure compliance of complete order dated 20/09/2021 Defendant had to make arrangement of complainant for living by providing her rent of rented place. Hereby defendant is directed to pay Rs.- 5,000/- as rent of rented place of complainant as per rent agreement filed by complainant. File to be put up on 30/09/2022 for further order." The order dated 24.09.2022 was assailed by the applicant before the appellate authority Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ist, Faizabad by means of Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2022 and the appellate court vide order dated

16.01.2023 affirmed the order of Civil Judge (J.D.) FTC/J.M., Faizabad. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred. Assailing the impugned order(s) dated 24.09.2022 and

16.01.2023, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Executing Court i.e. Civil Judge (J.D.) FTC/J.M., Faizabad has exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the applicant to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards rent to the opposite party No.2 and this aspect was not taken note of by the appellate court. Elaborating this aspect of the case, he submitted that as per direction of the Court of first instance under the D.V. Act namely Judicial Magistrate-II, Faizabad, the applicant was under obligation to provide rented accommodation and there is no direction to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month towards rent and taking note of the same as also the settled law on the issue that the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree passed by the trial court, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. The opposite party No.2, Smt. Kiran, in person on being asked says that there is no such direction in the order dated

20.09.2021, according to which, the applicant is under obligation to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month towards rent. Considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the record. As per the directions in the Order dated 20.09.2021 of the court of first instance under the D.V. Act namely Judicial Magistrate-II, Faizabad, the applicant is under obligation to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the opposite party No.2-Smt. Kiran and Rs. 15,000/- to the opposite party No.3-daughter of the applicant and the applicant is also under obligation to pay Rs. 1500/- to opposite party No.2 and Rs. 1000/- to opposite party No.3, as maintenance, per month and applicant is also under obligation to provide a rented accommodation and in the order dated

20.09.2021 there is no such direction, according to which, the applicant is under obligation to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month towards rent. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that Civil Judge (J.D.) F.T.C./J.M., Faizabad i.e. Executing Court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the applicant to pay Rs. 5,000/- as rent vide order dated 24.09.2022. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the direction to pay Rs. 5,000/- in the order dated 22.04.2022 affirmed vide order dated 16.01.2023 is hereby set aside. The present application is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. Order Date :- 20.12.2023 Vinay/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench