S RAJENDRAN Vs. REVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in CMP No. 1100/92 on the file of Judicial Magistrate - 1, Villupuram has filed this petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. to call for the records in the above case and to quash the same.

(2.) Short facts are : The respondent has filed a petition for maintenance against the petitioner under Sec. 125 Cr. P. C. in MC No. 232/85 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Vilupuram. After enquiry, the learned Magistrate has passed an order awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month. Subsequently, the respondent again filed MC. No. 12/92 on the file of Judicial Magistrate - I, Vilupuram, under Sec. 125 Cr. P. C. praying for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. On the allegation that since the order of maintenance passed in MC. No. 232/85, the respondent filed CMP No. 1100/92 to realise the arrears of maintenance during the pendency of that petition, the petitioner paid part of the amount and made an offer to live together and believing the promise she agreed to live together and settled the case. It is further alleged that for some time the petitioner was living with the respondent and then again he began to illtreat her and ultimately drove her out, asking her to get Rs. 20,000/- from her parents. The respondent's parents gave Rs. 20,000/- and settled them at Nagapattinam. Even thereafter, the respondent was ill-treating her and finally he drove her out on 5-6-1992. So she has filed that petition for maintenance. It appears that during the course of enquiry in MC. No. 12/92 while the respondent gave evidence as P. W. 1, her evidence was stopped, half way and order was passed permitting her to withdraw the petition. Thereafter she has filed CMP. No. 1100/92 to realise the arrears of maintenance.

(3.) Mr. K. Ramachandran. Learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that in as much as the respondent had compromised the matter with the petitioner and lived together from 1989-92 she cannot thereafter execute the order passed in MC. No. 232/82 by filing this petition in CMP 1100/92 for realising the arrears of maintenance. Per contra Mr. T. Dhanya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that the order of maintenance passed in MC. No. 232/85 still stands and it did not get erased for the reason that the spouses lived together for some period, after the passing of the award in MC. No. 232/85.