VINITA DEVANGAN Vs. RAKESH KUMAR DEVANGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the order dated 20. 8. 2007 passed in Case No. 75/05 by the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, family Court, Raipur, whereby the application under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. for grant of maintenance filed by the. petitioner herein was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had income from a Boutique and was thus possessed of means of earning livelihood.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that the petitioner was compelled by her family members to marry the non-applicant on 30. 6. 2001 even though she was in love with other person. Differences erupted within 3 months of her marriage to the non-applicant. The petitioner left her matrimonial home and started living with her parents. A document Ex. D8 was executed by the petitioner whereby she agreed to give divorce to the non-applicant and also relinquished her right to claim maintenance thereafter. A decree for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was passed in Civil Suit No. 297a/2002 by judgment dated 16. 6. 2003 by the 5th Additional district Judge, Raipur. On 16. 12. 2003 an application under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. for grant of maintenance was filed by the petitioner. On 30. 3. 2000 the non-applicant husband was proceeded ex parte. On 1. 4. 2006 an order was passed by the 2nd additional Principal Judge, Family Court, raipur, whereby maintenance of Rs. 900/-was awarded to the petitioner from the date of order. The ex parte order was set aside in m. J. C. No. 85/2008 on 8. 5. 2007. Repeated efforts for reconciliation between the parties the Family Court failed. The petitioner and the non-applicant adduced evidence by affidavits under Order 18, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and were cross-examined. The non-applicant examined Md. Abdul kaish to substantiate that the petitioner was earning from th6 Boutique. By the impugned order, the application under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. was dismissed.

(3.) SHRI Kshitiz Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Family court erred in taking into consideration the stipulation in the agreement Ex. D8 regard-ing relinquishment of her right to claim maintenance. Placing reliance on Ranjit kaur v. Pavittar Singh it was urged that such an agreement being opposed to public policy and against the clear intendment of section 125 of the Cr. P. C. cannot be enforced or be shield in a Court of law to the non-applicant for avoiding to pay maintenance to a divorced wife who was unable to maintain herself.