CHANDRAKANT RATILAL BHAVSAR Vs. HASUMATI SOMCHAND BHAVSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision application is directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha District at Himantnagar, in Criminal Revision Application No. 31 of 1984 on 7th Dec., 1984. By the said order the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Prantij, in the Criminal Misc. Application No. 63 of 1983. The learned J.M.F.C. by the order dated 21-8-1984 allowed the application No. 63 of 1983 of the applicant Chandrakant Ratilal Bhavsar, the petitioner herein, on the basis of the order passed by this Court in the Criminal Revision Application No. 1290 of 1983 and restored the Criminal Misc. Application No. 21 of 1983.

(2.) The petitioner in the present petition is the original opponent in the Criminal Misc. Application No. 21 of 1983. The present opponent No. 1 Hasumati Somchand Bhavsar had filed the said application for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The said application was fixed hearing on 12th Aug., 1983, but on that date the lawyer of Chandrakant Ratilal Bhavsar, the petitioner hearing could not remain present on account of unavoidable work and therefore ex parte order was passed on that date in the Criminal Misc. Application No. 21 of 1983. Being aggrieved by the said order the present petitioner had moved this Court in the Criminal Revision Application No. 1290 of 1983 which was heard by Justice A.P. Ravani and by the order of this Court in the said Revision Application passed on 17-1-1984 the ex parte order granting maintenance was set aside and the matter was ordered to be restored and directed to be heard on merits. In spite of the order of this Court which was followed by the learned JMFC in the Criminal Misc. Application No. 63 of 1983, the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the said order as a result of which the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in the Criminal Revision Application No. 31 of 1984 became contrary to the order passed by this Court in the Criminal Revision Application No. 1290 of 1983. The said order of the learned Sessions Judge is therefore, patently erroneous. The learned Sessions Judge is hound by the order passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 1290 of 1983 and when the said order passed by the High Court in fact it was not necessary to pass a separate order in the Criminal Misc. Application No. 63 of 1983. However. when the said application was decided following the order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid revision application, the learned Sessions Judge should not have set aside the order passed by the learned JMFC in the Criminal Misc. Application No. 63 of 1983. As the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is patently erroneous and illegal the same deserves to be set aside.

(3.) At the time when this matter came up for hearing on 13th March, 1985, Miss V.P. Shah, who appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is patently erroneous, but the parties would not he happy only by merely setting aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore, she initiated efforts for reconciliation between the parties and it must he said to the credit of Miss Shah that but for her efforts there would not have been any reconciliation between the parties. On account of the sincere efforts made by both the Advocates appearing for the parties and the cooperative attitude adopted by the parties themselves and also their relatives there is a happy re-union between the petitioner and the opponent. During the efforts made by them the parties were directed to go to some religious place and accordingly, the present petitioner and the opponent No. 1 together have gone to Mahudi and Mahesana and they stayed there as husband and wife for about five days and on returning they have reported to their respective Advocates that they were happy with each other and that in fact there are no differences between the two. Accordingly, today before me when the matter was called out for hearing, they have placed a writing duly signed by them counter signed by their learned Advocates stating therein about their visit to Mahudi and Mehsana. They have further stated therein that there was one writing about alleged divorce between the two and that the void on account of the fact that there was no such custom for taking divorce in their community and therefore, it is declared as void by both of them. It was also stated that when the writing was alleged to have been executed one cheque is alleged to have been given to the original petitioner Hasumati by the maternal uncle Ramanbhai, of the present petitioner Chandrakant, but Hasumati has clarified that the said cheque was a bearer one and on receiving the amount the maternal uncle Kainanbhai has kept the amount with him under the pertex that a separate house for her was to be kept and that in fact the amount of the aforesaid cheque is not with her. The petitioner and the opponent No. 1 have cleaned counsel their breasts and they sincerely desire to live together happily and therefore, Hasumati the original petitioner has not only waived her right to get the arrears of maintenance, but she also expressed that she withdraws the maintenance application pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Prantij. Both the petitioner and the opponent No. 1 have given promise to each other to adjust with each other and live happily. Hasumati, the opponent No. 1 has also expressed that she would also behave well with her mother-in-law.