SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners have submitted that opposite party no. 2 is wife of the petitioner no.1. Their marriage was solemnized on 29.11.2009, after the marriage, opposite party no. 2 started quarrel to the petitioner because she want to live separately with petitioner no. 1 only on denial being angry, she has gone to her father's house. The petitioner has tried to bring back to her but she did not agree. The S.H.O. Kotwali Sahar investigate the matter and he found that no incident has been done by the petitioner. The petitioner is agreed to live with his wife but the father and the brother of opposite party no. 2 is not agree to send her. This is a matrimonial dispute which can be settled after the mediation. The petitioner has filed a case under section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, O.S. No. 326 of 2010 in which notices have been issued and ultimately above case was decreed in terms and compromise arrived at between the parties. Prior to passing of impugned judgment. The learned lower court below has not taken cognizance of the fact that above referred O.S. No. 325/2010 has been decided in the terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties in which it was settled that all the pending litigation will be withdrawn by the parties. As such, impugned judgment and order is bad and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

(3.) OPPOSING above submissions, learned A.G.A. submits that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order and there is no occasion for interference in the impugned judgment.