PANDURANG LAXMAN TORMAL Vs. SAVITA PANDURANG TORMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (husband) in maintenance proceedings M.A.No.105 of 2004 prays to quash and set aside order dated 1.9.2005 passed below Exh.14 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court, Shelgaon.

(2.) Petitioner - Pandurang and respondent - Savita are husband and wife, respectively and Archana - respondent No.2 is their daughter. It appears that respondent No.1 Savita had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. bearing No.14/1994, which was allowed and maintenance was granted in the sum of Rs.200/- for wife and Rs.100/- for daughter. It is case of the petitioner that husband and wife during the interregnum period entered into compromise, whereby both of them decided to cohabit each other while wife had surrendered her right to claim maintenance and also agreed to withdraw prosecution under Section 496 read with Sec.500 of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner-husband had agreed to sell a plot situated at Chitegaon, Aurangabad, which was in the name of his father to the applicant wife Savita. Under these circumstances, petitioner and his wife had filed compromise at Exh.8 in Misc.Cri.Application No.74/1997 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shevgaon. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shevgaon, on 22.9.1997 had passed following order :

(3.) While according to learned Advocate for the respondents since earlier, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class had granted maintenance and did not cancel that order notwithstanding the compromise praecipe filed before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, it was open for the respondents to bring change in the circumstances, to the notice of the learned Magistrate granting maintenance so as to pass an appropriate order in respect of the claim of the respondent wife and her daughter. Learned Advocate for the respondent brought to my notice ruling in Bhupinder Singh v. Daljit Kaur, 1979 AIR(SC) 442 in which Honourable Supreme Court observed thus :