V. KRISHNA RAO Vs. SMT. V. PARVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD ; Sri P.K. Padhi, 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 ordinarily 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 spouses on 24.11.1991 continued on Iy for about a week. Thereafter the opposite party again filed a proceeding under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 125 of 1991. On 11.11.1993 ex parte order was passed granting monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/ - (four hundred). Thereafter Petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No. 28/94 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, obviously under Section 126, Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to set aside the ex parte order. In that proceeding, on 10.7.95 a settlement was made and petition for compromise was filed, as per which the wife shall claim for monthly maintenance as against payment of a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - (thirty thousands) and out of that date a sum of Rs. 25,000/was paid in Court. Later date when the Petitioner offered the remaining alleged by the Petitioner, the opposite party refused the same and on 3.11.1995 filed an application to recall the compromise dated 10.7.1995. That application was rejected by learned S.D.J.M. on 27.5.96. Learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Criminal Revision No. 2/22 of 1996 -97 set aside that order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. That order of the Sessions Judge is under challenge in Criminal Revision No. 393 of 1997.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel of the Petitioner on a reference to the ratio in the case of 2000 (I) OLR 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 12, Code of Criminal Procedure 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, Code of Criminal Procedure 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 in unnecessarily dragged to the Court for years and there has been willful default on the plat of the Petitioner in not paying the maintenance.