JUDGMENT : B.N. KARIA, J. 1. By means of preferring this Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, the appellant-original judgment-debtor has sought to challenge common Order dated 30th March 2018 passed below Application [Exh. 68] in Execution Petitions No. 60 of 2013; 68 of 2015 and 39 of 2016, whereby the prayer made by the appellant to cross examine the applicant [Darkhastdar] came to be rejected by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 4, Ahmedabad. 2. Facts giving rise to the present First Appeal, read thus- 3. The appellant-original judgment-debtor and the respondent-applicant were spouses. Due to certain matrimonial disputes between them, they opted for divorce. During the course of proceedings, consent terms were presented on 24th October 2007 in HMP No. 950 of 2005, which came to be accepted by the Family Court and a decree of dissolution of marriage was accordingly passed. In the said consent decree, one of the conditions of divorce was that the appellant-husband would pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month with 10% annual incremental rise for their daughter, named Khushi, till she attains the age of eighteen years, or she got married; whichever being the later. 4. Being aggrieved by inaction on the part of appellant-husband to pay regularly the agreed amount of maintenance for minor Khushi, the opponent-wife preferred Execution Petition No. 60 of 2013 complaining that the appellant-husband had not paid any maintenance for their daughter; as promised. After a gap of around one year in each case, she filed two more Execution Petitions, being 68 of 2015 and 39 of 2016, claiming maintenance for minor- Khushi for the subsequent period. Pending these petitions, admittedly, appellant made certain payments through account payee cheques. However, the opponent-wife seriously disputed receipt of any payment by her prior to filing Execution Petition No. 60 of 2013; except as averred in pursis Exh. 32. This stand of the opponent-darshastdar was objected to by the appellant herein in Execution Petition No. 60 of 2013, which is pending adjudication and for these reasons, the Family Court did not entertain plea of the opponent for consolidation of the Execution Petitions. 5. 32. This stand of the opponent-darshastdar was objected to by the appellant herein in Execution Petition No. 60 of 2013, which is pending adjudication and for these reasons, the Family Court did not entertain plea of the opponent for consolidation of the Execution Petitions. 5. The issue with respect to consolidation of execution petitions was raised before this Court by the appellant-husband by filing First Appeal No. 156 of 2018, wherein, the Court vide detailed dated 29th January 2018; while disposing of the First Appeal as well as Civil Application, issued directions to the Family Court to consolidate three Execution Applications; give opportunity to both the sides to produce material in support of their rival stands and dispose of the consolidated proceedings expeditiously. 6. The learned Judge, Family Court No. 4, Ahmedabad vide Oral Order dated 30th March 2018; after affording opportunity to both the sides, rejected the application giving rise to the present First Appeal. 7. Heard learned advocate Shri BJ Trivedi appearing for the appellant-husband judgment-debtor and Opponent party-in person. 8. It was submitted by learned advocate Shri Trivedi appearing for the appellant-husband that in an Execution Petition No. 60 of 2013, regular payment; as agreed between the parties in a settlement pursis dated 24th September 2007 in HMP No. 950 of 2005 was made by the appellant by paying the amount in cash to the opponent-wife. That, such payments were made from April 2014 onwards till January 2018 and are calculated, and thus, husband has cleared outstanding amount, however, dispute was raised by the opponent-wife that no regular payment was made by the appellant from 24th September 2013, till filing of the Execution Petition No. 60 of 2013. That, whenever disputed facts arose between the parties, it would be indispensable to record oral evidence to arrive at a proper and correct finding so that right conclusion can be reached at. That, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“Code” for short], all the questions arising between the parties to a suit in which decree was passed relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree would be determined by the Executing Court and it would not be necessary for a party to file a separate suit. That, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“Code” for short], all the questions arising between the parties to a suit in which decree was passed relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree would be determined by the Executing Court and it would not be necessary for a party to file a separate suit. That, the dispute arose by the respondent alleging that the payments, as agreed between the parties in HMP No. 950 of 2005, was regularly not paid by the appellant was not correct, and therefore, it was necessary to permit the appellant to cross examine the respondent-wife. That, while making cash payment to the respondent-wife by the appellant, number of times, no receipts were issued by the respondent and therefore, this issue has arisen and to find out the truth, it is necessary to permit the appellant-husband to cross examine the respondent-wife to find out the correct truth in respect of payments made to her. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate Shir Trivedi to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 30th March 2018 passed below Exh. 68 in Execution Petitions No. 60 of 2013; 68 of 2015 and 39 of 2016. 9. Respondent-Veenaben Anandbhai Lokapur who appeared inperson supported the impugned order dated 30th March 2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 4, Ahmedabad below Application Exh. 68 in Execution Petitions No. 60/2013; 68 of 2015 and 39 of 2016. She urged that the three different Execution Petitions were preferred by her on account of non payment of maintenance amount by the appellant; as agreed to be paid by the appellant for their minor daughter in a settlement pursis filed in HMP No. 950 of 2005. It is further submitted that while arriving at a settlement between them, no amount was received by her for maintenance but the appellant, being father of minor-Khushi, volunteered to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month towards her maintenance with an incremental rise of 10% per annum. That, the appellant was irregular in making payment towards maintenance of minor and therefore, the above stated three Execution Petitions came to be filed by her in the Family Court at Ahmedabad. It is further submitted that no permission for cross examination, as requested by the appellant, can be granted by the Court under Section 47 of the Code. That, the appellant was irregular in making payment towards maintenance of minor and therefore, the above stated three Execution Petitions came to be filed by her in the Family Court at Ahmedabad. It is further submitted that no permission for cross examination, as requested by the appellant, can be granted by the Court under Section 47 of the Code. That, the question of her cross examination would arise only after examination-in-chief is permitted. Straightaway, no cross examination of any party in the suit, or in a execution petition would be permissible under the law. That, just to delay the proceedings initiated by her, the appellant has submitted a false application for her cross examination. That, she is facing financial constraints, as payments was not regularly made by the appellant-husband. That, just to harass her, a frivolous application was filed by the appellant. Hence, it was requested by her to dismiss the First Appeal. 10. Having considered the facts of the case and submissions of learned advocate so also party-in-person as well as on perusal of the documents placed on the record, the uncontroverted facts between the parties are required to be referred here. 11. In HMP No. 950 of 2005, consent terms were presented by the husband and wife [appellant and opponent herein] on 24th October 2007 which were accepted by the Family Court and a decree of dissolution of marriage was accordingly passed. In the said decree of dissolution of marriage, one of the conditions of divorce was that the husband would pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- for their daughter named Khushi, till she attains age of eighteen years or she gets married; whichever being the later. When the appellant failed to pay amount of maintenance; as agreed in the Settlement pursis in HMP No. 950 of 2005, the respondent wife instituted Execution Petition No. 60 of 2013 praying for recovery of an amount of Rs. 9,09,000/- [rounded off] before the Executing Court ie., Family Court at Ahmedabad. Again, during pendency of Execution Petition No. 60 of 2013, second execution petition came to be preferred by the opponent-wife, being Execution Petition No. 68 of 2015 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,62,846/- and even during pendency of the second application, opponent-wife preferred third petition, being Execution Petition No. 39 of 2016 against the present appellant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,28,604/-. 4,62,846/- and even during pendency of the second application, opponent-wife preferred third petition, being Execution Petition No. 39 of 2016 against the present appellant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,28,604/-. As the three different execution petitions were pending before the learned Judge, Family Court against the same party for recovery of maintenance, a request was made by the appellant-husband to consolidate all the three petitions. The learned Judge of the Family Court rejected the request made to consolidate three execution petitions, and therefore, the appellant preferred First Appeal No. 156 of 2018 before this Court, wherein the Court was pleased to pass an order dated 29th January 2018 ordering consolidation of three petitions preferred by the opponent-wife. The present appellant thereafter preferred an application Exh. 68 requesting the Court to permit him to cross examine the present opponent, which was rejected in terms of an order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court on 30th March 2018. 12. Here, this Court would like to refer to necessary ingredients required for permitting any party to a suit in which decree has been passed to raise a question for discharge or satisfaction of the decree before the Executing Court. “47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree.- (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. [***] (3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court. Explanation I: For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose Suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit. Explanation II: (a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the degree is passed; and (b) All questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.” 13. From the record, it appears that all the three execution petitions were preferred by the opponent-wife who is the petitioner in the said petitions praying for recovery of arrears of maintenance agreed for minor-Khushi as per the settlement arrived at between them in HMP No. 950 of 2005. A contention has been raised by the appellant that he had regularly paid the amount but no receipts were obtained by him from the opponent-wife, and therefore, he is not liable to pay any arrears; as prayed for by the opponent. It would be an obligatory duty on the part of the appellant, being a husband, to deposit the amount of maintenance for his minor daughter before the court and receive receipt from the Court or from the respondent-wife, as and when remittance is made. In defence of the execution petition filed by the wife, say of the appellant husband is that he had made certain payments in cash but for which no receipts were obtained. It is the duty of the appellant to prove this fact. Further, the present appellant was the respondent in all the three execution petitions preferred by the opponent-wife. The respondent has never requested the Court to permit her to lead any oral evidence by filing an affidavit or by any other mode. Without any examination of the respondent or giving any oral evidence by her, no cross examination of the respondent, who is the petitioner in the execution petitions, can be permitted. Here, as discussed above, there is no evidence or examination-inchief was permitted to the respondent. She being the petitioner in the execution petitions, there would be no question of cross examination of the respondent, as requested by the present appellant before the Court below. 14. The powers of Court under Section 47 of the Code are quite different and much narrower than its powers of appeal, revision or review. The exercise of powers under Section 47 is microscopic and lies in a very narrow inspection hole. All questions relating to facts and law which have been raised or could have been raised and decided during trial, appeal or revision would not be re-opened in the execution proceedings. The learned Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad has rightly disallowed the prayer made by the present appellant for cross examination of the respondent by leading any evidence under Section 47 of the Code. The learned Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad has rightly disallowed the prayer made by the present appellant for cross examination of the respondent by leading any evidence under Section 47 of the Code. The appellant cannot prove payments through cross examination of the wife. If at all, he has to lead his evidence. 15. Under the circumstances, as there is no error or defect, or even for that matter, any irregularity committed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad in rejecting the application Exh. 68 moved in Execution Petitions No. 60 of 2013; 68 of 2015 and 39 of 2016, the present Appeal fails and the same is dismissed along with the Civil Application. Notice discharged.