GAYABAI Vs. YADAVRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner no. 1 is the wife of the respondent and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are their sons. In 1981, petitioners filed an application against the respondent for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the said proceedings, the parties viz; the petitioners and the respondent entered into a compromise. Under the said compromise; the respondent herein agreed to pay to his wife-petitioner no. 1 maintenance at the Rs. 150/- per month and to each of his sons, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 herein, maintenance at the rate of Rs. 550/- per month. This order was passed on 1st March 1982.

(2.) More than one year thereafter, on 11th April 1983, the respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 17 of 1983 for a declaration that the petitioner herein, was not his wife and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 herein are not his sons and hence they are not entitled to maintenance and for a further declaration that order dated 3rd March 1982 in proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was obtained by fraud misrepresentation and was, therefore, not binding on him. In the said suit, respondent filed application (exhibit 5) for stay of recovery of maintenance amount passed in proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Trial Court by its order dated 13th April 1983 granted the application for stay. Hence this petition.

(3.) In support of the petition, I have heard the petitioners learned Counsel Mr. M.D. Joshi. The respondent, though served, has not chosen to appear either personally or through any Advocate of his choice. I have, therefore, not had the benefit of any argument on his behalf.