BALWANT PANDURANG GARGATE Vs. VIDYA BALWANT GARGATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Misc. Criminal Revision Application No. 74/96 on 22-7-1997. By this the learned Sessions Judge upheld the order passed by the learned Magistrate, Exhibit "b" which is at page 24 of the petition. It is rightly pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge in his order that considering the short point required to be decided, it is not necessary to go into the detailed facts of the case. According to the petitioner, there was an order of monthly maintenance allowance passed against him by the Magistrate and for arrears of Rs. 8,700/ -. Criminal Application No. 205 of 1994 was filed. In that application, there was an application moved jointly i. e. signed by both the parties to the effect that the wife has received Rs. 5,000/- by way of maintenance allowance and that she has given up the claim for remaining amount and also for recovery of anything in future. It is pertinent to point out here that in this application there was no prayer for cancelling of the order of maintenance which would have put an end to the matter. Immediately, thereafter the wife moved an application that although she has accepted Rs. 5,000/- it is not in full and final settlement of her claim and she has not given up any part of the claim. In the situation, the learned Magistrate passed an order for recovery of the balance amount. The compromise was entered into when the matter was sent to the Lok Nyayalaya but admittedly it is not even the case of the present petitioner that at any stage the wife admitted before the Lok Nyayalaya or before the Magistrate or even before the Sessions Court that she has signed the compromise purshis in full and final settlement of her claim and has given up the claim for future maintenance. The right of maintenance is very valuable right of the wife which would help her to keep her body and soul together and is not likely to be given up so lightly for consideration of the part of the amount of arrears and therefore in my view the learned Sessions. Judge did not commit any illegality or error of jurisdiction in dismissing the revision application. No other argument was even advanced before me and what is contended was that the parties may arrive at a settlement if notice is issued. Even before the learned Magistrate where the proceedings for recovery are pending the settlement can be arrived at and for that reason this petition need not be entertained and in any case for same reason Court will not exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or section 482 of Cr. P. C.

(2.) CERTIFIED copy expedited.