RATNA SHARMA Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The instant revision application has been filed against an order dated 7th October, 2013, passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Aligarh in Matrimonial Petition No.227 of 2007, by which the application of the revisionist (defendant in the suit) to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff, in view of the compromise dated 23rd May, 2009, filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, has been rejected and a date has been fixed for filing of written statement and framing of issues.

(3.) The facts relevant for deciding the instant case as they appear on record are that in the year 2005, the plaintiff-respondent (the husband of the revisionist) instituted a suit for divorce against the revisionist before District Judge, Tees Hazaari Courts, New Delhi, which was transferred to district Aligarh, by order of the Apex Court dated 7.12.2007, and was registered there as Matrimonial Petition No.227 of 2007 in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Aligarh. It appears that the revisionist had filed a criminal case against the plaintiff-respondent, which proceeded as Case No.4688 of 2005 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, under Section 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the criminal case that is Case No. 4688 of 2005, an application dated 23rd May, 2009 was jointly filed by the revisionist and the plaintiff-respondent, before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, praying therein that on the basis of compromise between the parties, the case may be disposed of. This application is on record as Annexure 6 to the affidavit. In this application it was stated that the parties have no subsisting dispute between them and, therefore, the revisionist, who was the prosecutrix there, does not want to press her case. In paragraph 6 of the application, it was stated that the plaintiff-respondent, who was an accused there, would withdraw the Matrimonial Petition No.227 of 2007. Before the concerned court could act on the compromise, a Criminal Misc. Application No.18856 of 2009 was filed before this Court, invoking its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of the proceedings of Case No.4688 of 2005. The said application was allowed vide order dated dated 31st July, 2009 and the proceedings of Case No. 4688 of 2005 were quashed. In the meantime, on 2nd July, 2009, the Matrimonial Petition No.227 of 2007 was dismissed for non-prosecution. The plaintiff-respondent therefore applied for its restoration under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court below restored the suit by its order dated 3rd July, 2012 against which the revisionist filed Civil Revision no.376 of 2012 before this Court on ground that since under the terms of the compromise the plaintiff-respondent was required to get his divorce case withdrawn, therefore, he could not have sought for recall of the order dismissing the divorce case in default. This Court vide order dated 30th July, 2012 disposed of Civil Revision no.376 of 2012 by observing that so far as the order of restoration of the suit is concerned the same does not call for interference but the question whether suit should proceed or should be dismissed in terms of the compromise dated 23.05.2009 is a question which can always be considered by the court below, accordingly, a direction was given to the court below to first consider the above aspect before proceeding with the suit.