MANORAMA PRAHLADBHAI MANORE Vs. PRAHLADBHAI ARJUNBHAI MANORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RANE J.

(2.) HE (the City Magistrate) has not referred to any authorities in support of his view that the order passed on the basis of the compromise cannot be enforced under sec. 488(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is nothing in sec. 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code to show that the court cannot pass an order on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. If the allegations made by the wife in the petition are admitted by the husband nothing further remains to be done in the matter by the petitioner and the court is empowered to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the admissions made by the husband. In the present case also it appears that the husband has admitted the allegations made by the wife against him. Under these circumstances the learned Magistrate was quite justified in passing the order as regards maintenance on the basis of the petition for compromise filed by the parties and in that case the order is enforcable under sec. 488(3) of the Code. If any authority is needed on the point it is provided by the decision in the case of Debjani v. Rasik Lal (A.I.R. 1941 Cal. 558). In the above case it has been held:- In proceedings under sec. 488 where a petition of compromise fixing the maintenance allowance is filed by both the parties the proper order to be passed by the Magistrate in such a case is petition of compromise filed. Order in terms of compromise and not Case amicably settled. Petition of compromise filed. Rule discharged and an order lawfully made by a Magistrate under sec. 488 whether on compromise or otherwise must be deemed to be enforceable in the manner provided by sec. 488(3).