JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. In a decision recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan “upon” an application preferred before him under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, “he assessed” maintenance in sums of Rs. 1500/- each vis-à-vis respondent No. 1 herein and vis-a-vis respondent No. 2, herein. The decision aforesaid recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate “stood through an apposite application put to execution” before the Court concerned whereupon it ordered for sums aforesaid standing coercively realized from all the assets of the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein stands aggrieved threrefrom hence prefers the instant petition for begetting reversal thereof. However, before proceeding to gauge the validity of the impugned order, it is befitting to advert to the important fact “that” during the pendency of Hindu Marriage Petition No. 10 NL/3 of 2013, titled as Harsh Versus Ajay Ghai, the learned Court concerned revered Ext. CA, exhibit whereof comprises a “Fargati Nama” recorded interse the parties at the lis, wherein they display that with there occurring bitter estrangements interse both, thereupon their marriage standing both mentally besides physically irretrievably broken down, hence on anvil thereof they sought dissolution of their marital ties, whereupon “it, in consonance therewith proceeded to pronounce a decree of severance of their marital ties”. Even though, Ext. CA records the evident fact that “all disputes” existing interse both, standing amicably settled, also a perusal thereof discloses that respondent No. 1 herein had abandoned her apposite claim with respect to a sum of Rs. 1500/- awarded to her “as maintenance” by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh. However, despite the aforesaid abandonment by respondent No. 1 herein “of her claim” with respect to maintenance comprised in a sum of Rs. 1500/-, “yet” she along with her minor daughter Kumari Aarti proceeded to institute a petition under Section 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Court concerned, wherein she sought realization from the petitioner herein, “of” sums of Rs. 1500/- each awarded as maintenance respectively vis-à-vis her and vis-a-vis her minor daughter. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, for hence ensuring satisfactory realization of award of maintenance in sums of Rs. 1500/- each per month, pronounced respectively with respect to the respondents No. 1 and respondent No. 2 herein, proceeded to order for initiation of coercive processes against all the assets of the petitioner herein. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, for hence ensuring satisfactory realization of award of maintenance in sums of Rs. 1500/- each per month, pronounced respectively with respect to the respondents No. 1 and respondent No. 2 herein, proceeded to order for initiation of coercive processes against all the assets of the petitioner herein. The ordering of coercive processes by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, “for ensuring” satisfactory realization of arrears of maintenance in sums of Rs. 1500/- per month, as stood assessed respectively upon the respondents, however “suffers invalidation” with respect to the apposite claim of respondent No. 1 “significantly” with hers, under Ext. CA, abandoning all her claims against the petitioner herein, thereupon she obviously stood barred to institute any petition for “its” realization from the petitioner. Also, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, was barred to irrereve Ext. CA, wherein recitals occur with respect to respondent No. 1 herein, abandoning her claim with respect to a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month, awarded as maintenance upon her by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, nor in respect of realization thereof, he held any jurisdictional empowerment to order for issuance of warrants of attachment of both the moveable and the immoveable properties of the petitioner herein. Consequently, to the extent aforesaid, the petition is allowed, besides the impugned order, whereby a coercive mandate has been issued for realization, from the estate of the petitioner herein, a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month, awarded as maintenance upon respondent No. 1 herein, is quashed and set aside. 2. A close perusal of Ext. CA which stood revered by the learned Judge, Lok Adalat for its “in consonance therewith” ordering for dissolution of marital ties of the petitioner herein with the respondent No. 1 herein, makes no disclosure with respect to respondent No. 1 herein, recording any recital therein “manifestative of its” execution also ensuing for the benefit and welfare of minor respondent No. 2, herein. Also there exists no recital therein that while hers safeguarding the interests of Kumari Aarti, respondent No. 2, herein, thereupon hers proceeding to also, on behalf of the latter, abandoning her claim with respect to a sum of Rs. 1500/-, pronounced as maintenance upon her by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh. Also there exists no recital therein that while hers safeguarding the interests of Kumari Aarti, respondent No. 2, herein, thereupon hers proceeding to also, on behalf of the latter, abandoning her claim with respect to a sum of Rs. 1500/-, pronounced as maintenance upon her by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh. Consequently, there was no bar for Kumari Aarti to proceed to, through her mother and natural guardian, respondent No. 1 herein, make an endeavour for realization, “through” coercive process’s, of maintenance amounts comprised in a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month, from the estate of the petitioner herein. 3. Moreover, importantly a sum of Rs. 1500/-, awarded as maintenance, vis-à-vis Kumari Aarti was also not amenable for its being compromised nor it was amenable for waiver or its abandonment by the respondent No. 1, significantly when thereupon she would be construed to be not safeguarding besides protecting the interest of minor respondent No. 2 herein, nor could she make any apposite waiver in respect thereto “given” the imperativeness of minor respondent No. 1 requiring the aforesaid sum towards her well being and upkeep, nor also reiteratedly respondent No. 1 herein could claim that by abandoning the aforesaid claims assessed vis-à-vis Aarti, she hence, was befittingly protecting and safeguarding the interest in litigation of minor Aarti. Cumulatively the impugned order pronounced with respect to a sum of Rs. 1500/-per month, assessed as maintenance upon minor respondent No. 1 “is amenable” for its realization, “through” coercive process’s from the assets of the petitioner herein nor hence the impugned order to that extent is amenable for its being quashed and set aside. 4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application preferred under Section 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Kumari Aarti, through her mother and natural guardian if permitted to be protected besides continued “would beget” the ill-consequences “of”, despite the prima-facie inability of her mother and natural guardian to watch and protect her interests in litigation, inability whereof is apparent from hers abandoning her claims with respect to sums of maintenance assessed vis-à-vis her minor daughter, “she” yet being impermissibly permitted to watch, besides take care of the interests of minor Aarti in the apposite litigation. In aftermath, he contends that the impugned order suffers in its entirety from a vice invalidation. In aftermath, he contends that the impugned order suffers in its entirety from a vice invalidation. However, the aforesaid submission “is unfounded” as it stands anvilled “upon” the fact of Ext. CA recording a recital with respect to respondent No. 1 herein waiving the rights of maintenance comprised in a sum of Rs. 1500/- assessed upon minor Kumari Aarti “by the” learned Court concerned, “also” he erringly contends that “its” containing a recital that thereupon the said waiver being “not” for the benefit and for the welfare of minor respondent No. 2, “whereas” with the aforesaid recitals not finding occurrence therein, hence constrains this Court to conclude that respondent No. 1-herein was throughout aware of the necessity of hers insisting for realization of a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month assessed as maintenance vis-à-vis minor Aarti “from the estate” of the petitioner herein nor hence she waived the imperativeness of its realization therefrom, especially when hence the well being and interests of minor Aarti, respondent No. 2, herein, “stood ensured” also thereupon she is to be inferred to befittingly take appropriate watch and care “of” the interest in litigation of Kumari Aarti, corollary whereof is that she holds the capacity to continue the petition on behalf of minor respondent No. 2. 5. Consequently, the apposite petition preferred before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, “solitarily” with respect to the claims of maintenance assessed upon minor Aarti “is” permitted to be continued on her behalf by her mother and natural guardian, impleaded herein as respondent No. 2. However, on an apposite application being preferred before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, the latter shall, in accordance with law, proceed to delete from the array of petitioners, the name of Harsh, hitherto wife of Ajay Ghai, the petitioner herein. However, the aforesaid deletion, shall not affect the claim of minor respondent No. 2. Till the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh makes an apposite order for deletion of the name of respondent No. 1 from the apposite array of petitioners, in the relevant petition, he shall not, with respect to the claim of respondent No. 2, execute the impugned orders upon the moveable and immoveable “properties” of the petitioner herein. 6. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present petition is partly allowed, hence to the extent aforesaid, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. 6. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present petition is partly allowed, hence to the extent aforesaid, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. No costs.