LATABAI NARCINHA TELANG Vs. SURESH NARCINHA TELANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Agni, for the petitioner and Mr. Bhobe for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 though served, is absent. Rule. Mr. Bhobe waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. By consent heard forthwith.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 16th June, 2004, passed by the Addl. District Judge, South Goa at Margao dismissing Civil misc. Application No. 109/2002/11.

(3.) Briefly, the facts which are relevant for disposal of this petition, are as follows : in Regular Civil Appeal No. 58/96, in which the petitioner was the appellant, consent terms were filed which were signed by both the parties and decree dated 3-7-1998 was passed by the Addl. District Judge, Margao, in terms of the consent terms filed. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 did not pay rs. 500/- per month to the petitioner in terms of the consent terms. The petitioner, therefore, issued notice dated 11-4-2004 railing upon respondent No. 1 to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 11,000/- being the arrears of maintenance from july, 1998 to April, 2000. The respondent No. 1 claimed that he was liable to pay only Rs. 500/- per annum. Thereafter, the petitioner checked the consent terms and the Decree and realised that instead of Rs. 500/- per month, one of the consent terms mentioned Rs. 500/- per annum. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under section 152 C. P. C. for correction of such typing mistake in the consent terms as well as the consent decree. The same was dismissed and the revision preferred by the petitioner before this Court bearing Civil Revision application No. 70/02, was permitted to be withdrawn, with liberty to file an application under Order 23, Rule 3 of C. P. C. Thereafter, the application under Order 23, rule 3 C. P. C. was filed with the following prayer :"that this application be allowed and consent terms decree be modified by introducing the word per month in place of per annum thereby making the liability to pay maintenance by the respondent No. 1 to the applicant on monthly basis instead of yearly basis. "after hearing both the sides, the Additional District Judge passed the impugned Order dismissing the application on various grounds. The Addl. District Judge has, inter alia, held that the applicant had neither examined herself, nor Advocate Navelkar who had filed affidavit in support of her case; that there was delay in filing the application; and that there is no power to modify the consent terms unless all the parties agree to the same. The petitioner by filling this present petition has challenged the said order dated 16-6-2004.