SMT. HEMALATA SAHOO Vs. MADAN MOHAN SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Sec. 19 of the Family Courts Act, read with Sec. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, Petitioner challenges the judgment dated 10.7.2000 of the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Criminal Proceeding No. 111 of 1998. That proceeding was initiated by the Petitioner, as noted in her application, under Sec. 125 read with Sec. 127, Code of Criminal Procedure and Sec. 7 of the Family Courts Act. That application of the Petitioner was rejected by the lower Court on the ground that she has forfeited her right to claim for fresh maintenance or enhancement of maintenance because of execution of the compromise vide Ext. A.

(2.) A flash back of fact discloses that Petitioner claiming to be the wife of the opposite party filed application under Sec. 125, Code of Criminal Procedure and that was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 39 of 1978 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhadrak. That application was allowed granting monthly maintenance @ Rs. 250/ -. As against that, opposite party was unsuccessful in the Criminal Revision No. 241 of 1982 filed in this Court. Application under Sec. 128, Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the Petitioner vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 111 of 1985 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhadrak for realisation of arrear maintenance to the tune of Rs. 21,625/ -. On 15.10.1985 a compromise was effected between the parties in that proceeding (under Sec. 128, Code of Criminal Procedure). According to the terms of the compromise opposite party made payment of Rs. 18,000/ - and agreed to pay further monthly maintenance @ Rs. 20/ - and that is how the Petitioner conceded in that compromise petition not to claim any further monthly maintenance beyond Rs. 20/ - (Twenty). Thereafter, Petitioner shifted her residence to Cuttack and in the year 1998 filed the aforesaid Criminal Proceeding No. 111 of 1998 claiming for maintenance/enhancement of maintenance.

(3.) Learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack after taking note of all the aforesaid admitted facts rejected Petitioners claim for maintenance on the ground of settlement vide the document of compromise Ext. A.