Case Note & Summary
The present writ petition was filed by Mrs. Debolina, the wife and decree holder, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 08.09.2025 passed in Execution Case No.59/2024 by the VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru (the Executing Court). The petitioner had obtained a maintenance decree against her husband, Sri Niloy Ghosh, who resided in West Bengal. The Executing Court issued a warrant of arrest against the respondent without first issuing notice under Order 21 Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and without determining whether it had territorial jurisdiction over the respondent. The petitioner challenged the order as unconstitutional. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the Executing Court had acted without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that the order was a nullity and liable to be quashed. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The court directed the Executing Court to proceed afresh in accordance with law, after issuing proper notice to the respondent and determining the question of jurisdiction.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Execution of Maintenance Decree - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The Executing Court passed an order for arrest of the judgment debtor without first issuing notice under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC and without determining whether the court had territorial jurisdiction over the judgment debtor who resided in West Bengal. Held that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction, hence liable to be quashed. (Paras 1-5) B) Constitutional Law - Writ of Certiorari - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to quash an order of the Family Court that was patently erroneous and without jurisdiction. Held that the order being a nullity, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in Execution Case No.59/2024 is sustainable in law and whether the Executing Court had jurisdiction to issue a warrant of arrest against the respondent without proper notice and without establishing territorial jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed in Execution Case No.59/2024 by the VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is quashed. The Executing Court is directed to proceed afresh in accordance with law, after issuing proper notice to the respondent and after determining the question of jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Writ of certiorari
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Execution of maintenance decree
- Territorial jurisdiction
- Notice to judgment debtor
- Arrest in execution
- Family Court Act
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
