Chanda Kumari & Ors. vs Dilip Kumar Singh
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 29 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010171032026
CRL.M.A. 33825/2026
IN
+ CRL.M.C. 3124/2026
CHANDA KUMARI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Apurb Lal & Ms. Neha Mondal,
Advocates
versus
DILIP KUMAR SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rana Ranjit Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A. 33825/2026 ( seeking early hearing )
1. The present application filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking early
hearing.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
3. The petition is taken up for hearing today itself.
CRL.M.C. 3124/2026
4. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’).
5. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Family Court-02, Rohini
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 3124/202 Page 1 of 5
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:47:50
(North-West), Delhi has refused to issue notice in the Execution Petition No.
278/2024 filed by the petitioners on account of non-production of a
Certificate of Pendency of Execution by the petitioners from the Family
Court, Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
6. Brief facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as follows:
th
6.1. On 12 March, 2006, petitioner no.1 was married with respondent
at Dhanbad, Jharkhand. Out of the said wedlock, two (2) children
were born.
6.2. In 2017, the petitioners filed for maintenance under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) before the
Additional Family Court-02 (‘AFC’) at Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
th
6.3. On 24 May, 2022, the Family Court, Dhanbad directed the
respondent to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month
to petitioner no.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month each to petitioners
no.2 and 3.
th
6.4. On 14 July, 2022, the respondent filed a Criminal Revision before
the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, which was dismissed on
th
28 June, 2024.
6.5. In March, 2023, the respondent brought his family including the
petitioners to Delhi.
th
6.6. On 26 October, 2024, the petitioners had filed an execution
petition under Section 147 of the BNSS before the Family Court,
Rohini, seeking to execute the judgment passed by the Family
Court, Dhanbad, Jharkhand awarding maintenance to the
petitioners.
th
6.7. On 25 April, 2026, the Family Court, Rohini directed the counsel
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 3124/202 Page 2 of 5
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:47:50
for the petitioners to produce a certificate (non pendency of
execution petition) from the Family Court at Dhanbad.
6.8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid directions, the petitioners have filed the
present petition.
7. Mr. Apurb Lal, counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of the
Court to Section 147 of the BNSS, in support of his contention that a
maintenance order including an order for interim maintenance can be
executed/enforced by any Magistrate, where the parties are residing.
Therefore, the insistence of a transfer certificate by the Family Court in
Rohini is completely unwarranted.
rd
8. Notice in the present petition was issued on 23 April, 2026.
9. Written submissions have been filed on behalf of the respondent.
10. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the
present petition is not maintainable, as no Government or State Authority
has been impleaded as a party and it is purely a private matrimonial dispute
between the parties.
11. He also submits that various other petitions have been filed by the
petitioners against the respondent, some of which are pending before this
Court. He further submits that the petitioners were brought to Delhi by the
respondent in March, 2023 and the respondent provided them
accommodation in a rented house and got the petitioners no.2 and 3, the
minor children, admitted in a school. He has been paying school fees since
April, 2023.
12. The aforesaid contention is disputed by counsel for the petitioners.
13. I have heard counsel for the parties.
14. The narrow controversy to be decided in the present petition is with
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 3124/202 Page 3 of 5
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:47:50
regard to the fact whether the present execution proceedings filed by the
petitioners before the Family Court at Rohini are maintainable and whether
the Family Court is justified in asking the petitioners to produce a transfer
certificate from the Family Court at Jharkhand.
15. I have perused the provisions of Section 147 of the BNSS.
16. For the sake of convenience, the same is set out below:
“ 147. Enforcement of order of maintenance .
A copy of the order of maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses
of proceedings, as the case may be, shall be given without payment to the
person in whose favour it is made, or to his guardian, if any, or to the
person to whom the allowance for the maintenance or the allowance for
the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,
is to be paid; and such order may be enforced by any Magistrate in any
place where the person against whom it is made may be, on such
Magistrate being satisfied as to the identity of the parties and the non-
payment of the allowance, or as the case may be, expenses, due.”
17. A perusal of Section 147 BNSS set out above, clearly shows that the
order of maintenance including interim maintenance can be enforced by any
Magistrate in any place, subject to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, with
regard to the identity of parties and non-payment of allowances/expenses.
18. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the petitioners as
well as the respondent are residing in Delhi, within the jurisdiction of the
Family Court at Rohini. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt about the
jurisdiction of the Family Court at Rohini to enforce/execute the
maintenance orders.
19. There is no requirement under Section 147 BNSS to provide a transfer
certification from the Court, which had passed the maintenance order.
Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the insistence by the Family Court
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 3124/202 Page 4 of 5
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:47:50
for the production of transfer certificate is wholly unjustified and
unwarranted.
20. In view of the discussion above, the present petition is allowed, and
the Family Court is directed to proceed with the enforcement of the
maintenance order, without insistence on a transfer certificate.
21. The costs imposed for non-production of the Transfer Certificate are
also set aside.
22. Needless to state that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
AMIT BANSAL, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026
at
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 3124/202 Page 5 of 5
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:47:50