G PANDARI Vs. PARKASH RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. Narsim Iyengar for the petitioner and Mr. Dattatreya Deshmukh for the respondent are present, so also the petitioner Pandari Rao and the mother of the minor respondent along With the minor. The parties have filed a petition saying that they are willing to compromise the case on the following terms:

(2.) THE parties have also proposed as to how the said sum of Rs. 4,000/- should be utilised and Invested viz. , that a sum of Rs. 500/- may be paid to the mother for meeting costs of this litigation till now and that out of the balance amount of Rs. 3,500/- a sum of Rs. 360/- be set apart and that the balance be invested in a bank as a fixed deposit for two years to be thereafter renewed and that the said sum of Rs. 360/- be utilised towards the minor's maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25/-per mensem. Mr. Deshmukh for the minor Respondent as well as the mother certifies that the proposed compromise is for the benefit of the minor and there is Mr. Deshmukh's endorsement to that effect on the petition.

(3.) I have to consider whether the case itself could be compromised, these being proceedings under Section 488, of the Criminal Procedure Code, or whether the parties have no other alternative than to invoke the decision of the Court whether they like it or not. There are numerous authorities holding that proceedings for maintenance in a criminal Court are more in the nature of civil proceedings; only, that the criminal process is applied for the purpose of summary and speedy disposal in the interests of society; so that helpless wives and children are not left on the road while those who are liable to maintain them have the capacity to do so.