V. PRAKASH RAO Vs. V. ARUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER /husband has filed this petition challenging the validity of order dated 10.2.2006 passed by the First Additional Principle Judge, Family Court burg in M.J.C. No. 326/2005, whereby his objection raised against the execution of an earlier order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been dismissed by the Family Court.

(2.) IN M.J.C. (Criminal) No. 33/96, the respondents were granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 400/- and Rs. 300/- under section 125 of Cr.P.C. Against the said order the petitioner filed a revision before the Sessions Court vide No. 187/98 and the said revision was dismissed on 19.9.98. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application under section 127 Cr.P.C. for alteration of amount of maintenance vide M.J.C. No. 215/98 on 30.10.98 but the same was dismissed on 21.3.2005. In the meanwhile, the husband filed a petition for divorce vide Civil Suit No. 52-A/96, which ended in a compromise and a compromise decree was passed in favour of the husband on 22.10.99 and the divorce was granted to the husband in terms of the compromise and it was also made a part of decree that both the parties shall not make any claim in relation to property. Thereafter, the respondents filed M.J.C. No. 326/2005 claiming arrears of maintenance as also current maintenance from the petitioner. It is in this case, an objection was raised by the petitioner against the execution that since the claims were abandoned by both the parties as per the compromise decree passed in Civil Suit No. 52-A/96, therefore, in terms of the compromise, the execution proceedings cannot be continued. The husband raised other grounds also like change of religion of wife and child and that of limitation. The Family Court rejected the objections by impugned order dated 10.2.2006 and directed the petitioner to comply with the order.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Uttam Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the compromise decree is silent on the point of maintenance and the respondents had rightly claimed their arrears and current maintenance in the execution proceedings, therefore, the objection was rightly dismissed.