Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munni @ Smt Sahayata Baghel vs Shri Pratap Singh Baghel on 16 October, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52590
1 WP-39512-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 16th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 39512 of 2025
MUNNI @ SMT. SAHAYATA BAGHEL
Versus
SHRI PRATAP SINGH BAGHEL
Appearance:
Shri Amit Verma - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri V.S. Choudhary - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :
(i) That the Hon'ble Court be. pleased to call for the entire records of
MICR No. 433/2024 titled Munni @ Smt. Sahayata Baghel Vs. Pratap
Singh Baghel from the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Sihora, District Jabalpur (M.P.).
(ii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature
of Mandamus or any other Writ/Order or Direction thereby
commanding the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Sihora, District Jabalpur (M.P.), to decide the case bearing MJCR No.
433/2024 titled Munni @ Smt. Sahayata Baghel Vs. Pratap Singh
Baghel within one month.
(iii) Any other relief/reliefs, order/orders, direction/directions,
writ/writs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the present
facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioner filed an
application under Section 125 of CrPC against respondent for grant of
maintenance. She also filed an application for grant of interim maintenance.
The respondent filed reply thereto. On 03.08.2024, the trial Court partly
allowed the application for interim maintenance and directed the respondent
to pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 30,000/- per month but the
respondent has not deposited a single penny and was not complying with the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52590
2 WP-39512-2025
order of the trial Court. Therefore, she was compelled to file an application
under Section 125(3) of the CrPC for recovery of interim maintenance. The
respondent deposited some amounts. At the time when the execution
proceedings were filed, the respondent was required to deposit an amount of
Rs. 90,000/- but he has not deposited the same. In the meanwhile, some talks
took place between the parties for one time settlement and divorce by mutual
consent but without successful. It is submitted that execution application was
filed on 13.11.2024 and is pending since then. An innocuous prayer is made
to direct the trial Court for expediting the execution proceedings pending as
MJCR No. 433 of 2024.
3. In this regard, petitioner's counsel has drawn attention of this Court to
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahul S.
Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi reported in (2021) 6 SCC
4 1 8 wherein wherein certain directions/guidelines have been issued. The
relevant extracts of the aforesaid judgment read as under :
41. Having regard to the above background, wherein there is urgent
need to reduce delays in the execution proceedings we deem it
appropriate to issue few directions to do complete justice. These
directions are in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 read
with Article 141 and Article 144 of the Constitution of India in larger
public interest to subserve the process of justice so as to bring to an end
the unnecessary ordeal of litigation faced by parties awaiting fruits of
decree and in larger perspective affecting the faith of the litigants in the
process of law.
...
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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52590
3 WP-39512-2025
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.
4. Counsel appearing for the State does not dispute the aforesaid
proposition.
5. Under these circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction
to the trial Court to expedite the execution proceedings and decide the
execution case being MJCR No. 433 of 2024 titled Munni @ Smt. Sahayata
Baghel vs Pratap Singh Baghel within a period of three months from the date
of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.
6. In above terms, the petition stands disposed of finally.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
