CHANGI Vs. MANNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Changi has filed this application under Section 438 of the Cri. P. C. praying that the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bindki dated 22nd July, 1974. and the revisional order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fatehpur dated 4th May, 1970 be quashed.

(2.) SMT. Changi moved an application under Section 488 Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance for herself and her minor daughter. That application was allowed by an order dated 8th December, 1909. Revision application filed against the order was also dismissed on 4th May, 1970. The applicant then moved an application for enforcement of the order granting maintenance to her and to her daughter. During the course of enforcement proceedings, it is said, a compromise petition was filed on 22nd July, 1974 and on the same date, the learned Magistrate made an order stating that the case was decided in terms of compromise and that the compromise shall form part of his order. Subsequently, the applicant moved an application dated 5th August, 1974, alleging that the said order accepting compromise be set aside as it was based on fraud and misrepresentation. The learned Magistrate, however, by his order dated 14th July, 1975, declined to recall his earlier order dated 22nd July, 1974. Being aggrieved, the applicant went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur.

(3.) BEFORE the Sessions Judge, the opposite party took the preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the revision. The Sessions Judge, however, repelled that objection and proceeded to decide the revision application on merits. He came to. the conclusion that it was competent for the Magistrate to record the compromise arrived at between the parties and to dispose of the case in accordance with it He, however, declined to go into the question as to whether the compromise had been arrived at by practising fraud and misrepresentation and held that it was not open to the revisional court to go into that question. According to him, the applicant could file a civil suit for getting of the compromise arrived at between the parties, declared as invalid. So long as the compromise stood, no exception could be taken to the order of the Magistrate recalling his earlier order datel 22nd July, 1974. In the result, he dismissed the revision application. The applicant has now come up before this Court.