(1.) HEARD Sri P.K. Padhi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri B.S. Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party. Both the revisions arising out of the same dispute between the parties being relating to a proceeding under Section 125, Cr. P.C. as agreed upon by the parties, is heard and disposed of analogously as per the following judgment which shall abide the result in both the Criminal Revisions.
(2.) THE undisputed fact involved in the case as projected before this Court is that the Petitioner (husband) and the opposite party (wife) entered into a marital tie on 15 -2 -1989. The relationship with cordiality could not last longer and in 1990 itself they Started living separately and litigations cropped up between them. The opposite party filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 15 of 1991 under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar which was ultimately disposed of as per conciliation and compromise in the Lok Adalat wherein the parties being advised agreed to live together. That decision to live together by the spouse on 24 -11 -1991 continued only for about a week.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner on a reference to the ratio in the case of B. Tanti v. Sunabati @ Nalini Dei : 89 (2000) C.L. T. 783: 2000 (1)O.L.R 63 concedes that because of the settled position of law a compromise cannot be effected in the manner it was done in the present case and therefore Petitioner does not argue on merit of both the revisions but as his application under Section 126. Cr. P.C. was not heard and decided on merit and disposed of on the basis of a compromise between the parties, the Petitioner should be given an opportunity to contest the application Under Section 126. Cr. P.C. vide Crl. Misc. Case No. 28/94. Learned Counsel for the opposite party does not agree to the aforesaid submission on the ground that opposite party is unnecessarily dragged to the court for years and there has been wilful default on the part of the Petitioner in not paying the maintenance.