1. This Civil Revision Petition (CRP) is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the civil execution proceedings instituted by the respondent herein/respondent No.2 in E.P.No.11 of 2025 in M.C.No.06 of 2021 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam (for short, ‘the trial Court’). Petitioner No.1 herein is judgment debtor No.1/petitioner No.1 in M.C.No.6 of 2021 and petitioner No.2 herein is the decree holder/petitioner No.2 in M.C.No.6 of 2021 and the respondent herein is judgment debtor No.2/respondent in M.C.No.6 of 2021.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this case are that petitioner No.1 and the respondent are wife and husband. Petitioner No.2 is born out of their wedlock and is under the guardianship of her mother, i.e., petitioner No.1. Alleging harassment and neglect by the respondent, the petitioners filed M.C.No.6 of 2021 before the trial Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., along with Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.24 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam. Subsequently, M.C.No.6 of 2021 was compromised before the Lok Adalat and petitioners 1 and 2 became decree holders and the respondent became the judgment debtor and as per the award of the Lok Adalat vide L.A.C.No.1019 of 2021 dt.04.09.2021, the respondent-husband had to register certain extent of agricultural land along with payment of Rs.25,00,000/- to petitioner No.2, i.e., the minor daughter by assigning responsibility to petitioner No.1 recognising her to be the legal guardian of petitioner No.2 and was required to maintain the welfare of petitioner No.2 with the help of the said amount. It is submitted that the respondent has made the payment of Rs.25,00,000/- to petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1 has given the said amount for interest and the interest amount is being utilised for looking after the welfare of the minor child.

3. It is submitted that while matters stood thus, the respondent has filed E.P.No.11 of 2025 before the Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam alleging that petitioner No.1 has misused the fund and has not placed the same in a fixed deposit in a bank, but has placed it under the custody of a third party and therefore, the fund is not being utilised for the purpose of petitioner No.2 and therefore, petitioner No.2, i.e., the minor being represented by her father, i.e., the respondent herein, has filed the EP as the decree holder/petitioner No.2 in M.C.No.6 of 2021 to enforce the Lok Adalat Award against the judgment debtors/petitioner No.1 and respondent in M.C.No.6 of 2021.

4. Petitioner No.1 is aggrieved by the action of the trial Court in entertaining E.P.No.11 of 2025. It is submitted that E.P.No.11 of 2025 filed under Order 21, Rule 31(1) read with Section 51(e) of CPC in a maintenance case instituted under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being a criminal matter, which has already attained finality, is prima facie not maintainable, patently illegal, blatantly arbitrary and unlawful and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the respondent-husband being the sole judgment debtor has no locus standi to file the E.P. and cannot assume the right of representative of petitioner No.2. It is further submitted that the Lok Adalat Award does not prescribe that the amount should be deposited in a bank only and as long as the said amount is being utilised for the purpose of maintenance of petitioner No.2, the respondent cannot have any grievance and therefore, according to petitioner No.1, E.P.No.11 of 2025 has to be dismissed with exemplary costs as not maintainable.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, relied upon the averments made in the affidavit filed along with the E.P. and also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.N.Govindan Kutty Menon Vs. C.D. Shaji ((2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 447) for maintainability of the application under CPC even though maintenance was granted by the Criminal Court. The learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Lok Adalat Award wherein, it was made clear that the amount has to be deposited and utilised for the purpose of petitioner No.2 only.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the preliminary objection about maintainability of the E.P. in a Maintenance Case when the Lok Adalat award was passed in the Criminal Case has to be decided first. This Court finds that this issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.N.Govindan Kutty Menon Vs. C.D. Shaji (1 supra) has held that the E.P. filed under CPC for enforcement of award of the Lok Adalat is maintainable. In para 17 of the order, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

               “17. From the above discussion, the following propositions emerge:

               (1) In view of the unambiguous language of Section 21 of the Act, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and as such it is executable by that Court.

               (2) The Act does not make out any such distinction between the reference made by a civil court and criminal court.

               (3) There is no restriction on the power of the Lok Adalat to pass an award based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in respect of cases referred to by various Courts (both civil and criminal), Tribunals, Family court, Rent Control Court, Consumer Redressal Forum, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and other Forums of similar nature.

               (4) Even if a matter is referred by a criminal court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and by virtue of the deeming provisions, the award passed by the Lok Adalat based on a compromise has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a civil court.”

               By applying the above rationale, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance amount granted in a maintenance case booked under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is enforceable under the CPC. Therefore, the ground raised against the maintainability of the E.P. is rejected.

7. As regards the maintainability of the execution petition by the respondent husband who himself is the judgment debtor and on his assumption as guardian of petitioner No.2, this Court finds that as per the Lok Adalat Award, the judgment debtor has to deposit the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and the Lok Adalat has recognised petitioner No.1 as the legal guardian of petitioner No.2. If the said position has to change, then the respondent ought to have filed an appropriate application before the Court for recognising him as the legal guardian of petitioner No.2.

8. Further, the Lok Adalat, while directing deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- for the benefit and welfare of petitioner No.2, has not prescribed any pre-requisite condition that such of the amount has to be kept in a fixed deposit only in a bank and that the proceeds only should be utilised for maintenance of petitioner No.2. The condition prescribed was that petitioner No.1 should utilise the interest derived out of the said sum for the benefit of petitioner No.2. Therefore, this Court does not find that petitioner No.2 has violated the award of the Lok Adalat in any way and hence, the allegations of the respondent-husband are not proved to be correct. The E.P. is therefore not maintainable by the respondent as the guardian of petitioner No.2. However, it is made clear that the petitioner No.1 shall not misuse or misappropriate the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- which has been deposited by the respondent for the benefit of petitioner No.2.

9. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed and E.P.No.11 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Khammam is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CRP shall stand closed.