SARDAR SIKHBIR SINGH Vs. KAKAMANI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 7.11.2012 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, whereby the application under section 128 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent was accepted and the previous maintenance was directed to be paid.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in short, are that, vide order dated 24.9.2001 passed in M.J.C. No. 889/2001, a maintenance was granted to the respondent Kakamani Singh. Thereafter, a compromise took place between the parties on 15.12.2003, which was not filed before the trial Court but, in the light of that compromise, mother of the respondent Kakamani had withdrawn his application of execution. When an application under section 128 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent through his mother then, the trial Court started recovery of the remaining maintenance amount.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant has also raised the objection that the applicant is suffering from serious illness and he is unable to pay any maintenance. However, it is a subsequent event after passing of the original order of maintenance on 24.9.2001 and therefore, it was for the applicant to move an application for modification in the order of maintenance on the pretext that now he has no source of income and he has to spent his entire income on his own treatment. Without filing the application for reduction in maintenance amount, such objection cannot be raised in case of recovery of maintenance. When order dated 24.9.2001 is intact, the respondent can get the recovery in compliance to that order. Under such circumstances, the learned second Additional Principal Judge has committed no wrong in rejecting the objection raised by the applicant.