Munna Singh @ Maan Singh vs Manju
2022 Latest Caselaw 20077 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 887 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Munna Singh @ Maan Singh
 
Respondent :- Manju
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Malviya
 

 
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

Heard learned counsel for the defendant-appellant.

This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 01.09.2022 in Execution Case No.4 of 2018 (Smt. Manju vs. Munna Singh @ Maan Singh), passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Agra whereby the Application 7C filed by the appellant herein under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, has been rejected.

Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant and the respondent both were husband and wife. The appellant filed a Divorce Petition No.636 of 2002 (Munna Singh @ Maan Singh vs. Smt. Manju), which was decreed by judgment and decree dated 31.01.2006. It appears that the maintenance as decreed under the decree of divorce, @ Rs.1000/- per month was paid by the appellant upto 30.04.2013 and thereafter he stopped paying it to the respondent on the ground that he moved an application under Section 25(2) of the Act, 1955 being Execution Case No.62 of 2013 (Munna Singh @ Maan Singh vs. Smt. Manju). The aforesaid Execution Case No.62 of 2013 was dismissed by judgment and order dated 29.09.2021. Since the appellant herein was not paying the decreetal amount to the respondent-wife, therefore, the respondent-wife filed the aforesaid Execution Case No.4 of 2018 in which the appellant herein filed an Objection 7C under Section 47, C.P.C. on the ground that the decreetal amount beyond three years is barred by limitation. The court below has rejected the objection of the appellant by the impugned order dated 01.09.2022 on the ground that it is for recovery of decreetal amount, therefore, it shall be governed by Article 136 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides period of limitation as 12 years. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and we find no substance in it.

Undisputedly, the decree of divorce was granted to the appellant-herein and a sum of Rs.1000/- per month was decreed for payment by him to the respondent-wife which he paid upto April, 2013 but subsequently stopped the payment on the ground of moving an application under Section 25(2) of the Act, 1955, which was ultimately rejected by the court below on 29.09.2021. The execution case has been filed by he respondent-wife for execution of decree dated 31.01.2006. The period of limitation of 12 years is provided for the execution of any decree (other than a decree granting mandatory injunction) or order of any civil court. Present case is not a case for payment of maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, therefore, the court below has not committed any manifest error to reject the Objection 7C filed by the appellant.

For all the reasons aforestated, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is totally frivolous and is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage.

Order Date :- 6.12.2022

NLY