HANAMANT BASAPPA CHOUDHARI AND BENNUR Vs. LAXMAWWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed challenging the order dated 29-4-2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basavana Bagewadi. In Cr. Misc. No. 88 of 1997 awarding monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- to the 1st respondent/wife and Rs. 100/- to the 2nd respondent/minor daughter as well as the order dated 6-10-2001 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in Cri. R. P. No. 131 of 2000 affirming the same.

(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioner/husband is that, though there is no dispute regarding his relationship with the respondent as well as his liability to pay maintenance, in an earlier petition, viz. , Crl. Misc. No. 40 of 1987 both the parties had entered into a compromise on 30-9-1988 in which the respondents had agreed to give up their entire claim of maintenance on receipt of a lump sum amount of Rs. 9,000/- as full and final settlement of the maintenance claim and as such the present petition once again claiming maintenance is illegal. It is contended that, as long as the respondents have not got the earlier compromise order cancelled and as long as it is not contended that the petitioner has committed any fraud, coercion or misrepresentation against the respondents while entering into the compromise, the same is binding on her and as such the respondents are not entitled to a fresh maintenance.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents appearing for the respondents relying on the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothia, AIR 1979 SC 362 and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case Daniatram Vyas v. Smt. Saraswati Bai (1978 Cri LJ 806) contended that the obligation to pay maintenance under S. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a statutory obligation and it cannot be bartered by any agreement between the parties as long as the need is, within the four corners of S. 125, Cr. P. C.