SARVESH KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the orders dated 17-4-2004, 22-7-2004 and 11- 8- 2004 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Allahabad in Execution Case No. 7 of 2004, Suman Shukla v. Sarvesh Shukla.

(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this application are that Smt. Suman Shukla, O. P. No. 4 in the present case and her two daughters, namely, Shrishti Shukla and Astha Shukla had filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. against her husband, Sarvesh Kumar Shukla, husband of applicant No. 1 and father of applicants No. 2 and 3, for recovery of maintenance allowance, which was registered as Case No. 29/2001, and in this case a compromise was filed on 3-12-2001, in which it was stated that Smt. Suman Shukla was the first legally wedded wife of the applicant and she had given birth to two daughters, Shrishti Shukla and Astha Shukla out of this wedlock and so it was agreed that Sarvesh Kumar Shukla shall pay Rs. 3,600/- per month to Smt. Suman Shukla for maintenance of herself and her two daughters. It was further provided in the said compromise that this amount shall be payable monthly during the entire life of Smt. Suman Shukla. It was further provided in the said compromise that in case Sarvesh Kumar Shukla fails to pay the amount regularly in the second week of every month, the amount may be recovered from his salary. It was also provided that Sarvesh Kumar Shukla shall perform marriage of Kumari Shrishti and Kumari Astha Shukla. This compromise was verified in Lok Adalat on 3-2- 2002 and the case was decided in terms of compromise. Since Sarvesh Kumar Shukla failed to pay this amount, Suman Shukla filed an application for execution of the above order in which she stated that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- only was paid by Sarvesh Kumar Shukla once only and thereafter nothing was paid by him and a sum of Rs. 84,400/- was due from him. This application was moved on 17-1-2004. On this application Presiding Officer of the Court passed an order on 17- 4-2004 to this effect that proceedings for recovery of arrears of maintenance for the period more than one year were time barred, so he passed an order for issuing recovery warrant of Rs. 54,000/- only against the present applicant. Since the amount was not received by deduction from the salary of the applicant, the order was passed on 22-7- 2007 directing to issue contempt notice to the Chief Treasury Officer with a direction to deduct Rs. 4,000/- per month from the salary of the applicant. THEreafter on 31-7-2004 Sarvesh Kumar Shukla filed an objection in which he alleged that he had paid Rs. 3,70,000/- to Smt. Suman Shukla and she had received this amount in full and final settlement of her claim of maintenance and so he was not liable to pay any amount to her. He filed a photostat copy of consent letter also allegedly executed by Smt. Suman Shukla before a Notary. On this objection, the Court passed order on 31-7-2004 that objection is not maintainable in execution case and he was directed to file separate miscellaneous case. Against these three orders the applicant, Sarvesh Kumar Shukla has filed this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. before this Court.

(3.) WHEN this subsequent so called compromise has not been produced and verified before the Court in the above manner, it cannot be pleaded as a defence in the execution proceedings for recovery of the maintenance amount, in view of earlier compromise verified before the Court as already ordered and the only remedy available to the applicant is to file a separate suit on the basis of this so called subsequent compromise.