PADMAVATI Vs. YALLAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in Criminal Misc. No. 287/2007 on the file of Family Court, Belgaum has come up in this petition seeking enhancement of maintenance awarded in the said proceedings which was initiated under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this petition are as under:

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as respondent. Perused the pleadings as well as the material available on record, along with the agreement dated 18.04.1994 which is filed this day along with the memo, there is one more document produced to show the age of the respondent, which is the certificate issued by primary school, to show the age of the respondent - husband. According to the said document presently he is aged about 71 years and the agreement dated 18.04.1994 would indicate that the petitioner herein has voluntarily left the company of the husband on the ground that there is compatibility between them. While leaving company of her husband, she has taken the daughter, born in the wedlock with the respondent and she had received a sum of Rs. 6,000/ -, as permanent alimony and it is seen that in spite of giving an undertaking that she is not entitled to seek any maintenance, subsequent to the date of agreement she has filed petition in Criminal Misc. No. 145/1994. Immediately thereafter, she secured maintenance of Rs. 150/ - per month and subsequently by filing petition under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure she has secured enhancement of Rs. 150/ - to Rs. 400/ - per month and thereafter, in the present Criminal Misc. No. 287/2007 she has secured enhancement of Rs. 400/ - to Rs. 1,000/ - per month. In fact she is not entitled to any maintenance from the husband subsequent to the agreement of settlement between herself and her husband on 18.04.1994. If the pleadings in Criminal Misc. No. 287/2007 is viewed, from the contents of agreement dated 18.04.1994, it is clearly seen that the allegation that respondent -husband has failed to maintain her is nothing but a false settlement made by her before the Court below for the sake of securing maintenance. Suppressing the fact that an agreement was entered into between the parties, wherein the petitioner - wife had given up her right to seek maintenance by receiving permanent alimony as on 18.04.1994.