JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 27.01.2018, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, H.P. in Cr. MA No. 887/17 and Cr. MA No. 671/2018 in Execution Petition No. 30/2015, titled as Deepti Sharma Vs. Deepak Sharma, vide which, two applications filed by the present petitioner stand disposed of. 2. Respondent before this Court had initiated proceedings against the present petitioner under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In these proceedings, vide order dated 15.03.2012, learned Court below ordered interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of the respondent herein. It appears that as the said order was not complied by the petitioner, respondent/applicant filed an application for execution and enforcement of order dated 15.03.2012. As on the date when this application was decided, i.e., 27.01.2018, an amount of Rs.1,96,000/- was due from the petitioner to the respondent. Vide impugned order, learned Court below issued directions to the employer of the present petitioner to forward salary of the petitioner to the present respondent by way of draft in lieu of due payment of interim maintenance of Rs.1,96,000/-. Vide same order, another application filed by the petitioner for dismissing the execution on the ground that decree of divorce stood passed on 20.06.2014, was also dismissed on the ground that Execution Petition was for execution of orders/proceedings pertaining to the period earlier to the date of grant of divorce. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned orders. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that as on the date when the impugned order was passed, an amount of Rs.1,96,000/- was due from him to the respondent in terms of maintenance granted by the learned Court below. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said order was set aside by any superior Court. No justifiable cause has been espoused by the petitioner before this Court as to why interim maintenance has not been paid. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said order was set aside by any superior Court. No justifiable cause has been espoused by the petitioner before this Court as to why interim maintenance has not been paid. In these circumstances, no perversity can be attributed to the order passed by the learned Court below, wherein, the learned Court below, in order to ensure that the respondent does get the maintenance which the Court has allowed to her, ordered the employer of the present petitioner to forward the salary of the petitioner by way draft in lieu of due payment of interim maintenance of Rs.1, 96,000/-. 5. Similarly, the order passed by the learned Trial Court disallowing the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of the Execution can also not be faulted with. Simply because a decree of divorce stood passed between the parties, same did not render the Execution Petition as infructuous, because the decree of divorce was passed on 20.06.2014, whereas execution was being sought of order (s), which stood passed much before the passing of decree of divorce and which order (s) admittedly were not complied with by the present petitioner. While passing the said order, learned Court below has rightly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Juveria Abdul Majid Patni Vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori, (2014) 10 SCC 736 , wherein, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce would not absolve liability of respondent from offence committed or to deny benefit to which aggrieved person was entitled under the Act. In view of the observations made hereinabove, as there is no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.