GEETA DEVI Vs. LEKH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 22.5.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin whereby he dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the wife) for review of the order dated 2.11.2007.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner Geeta Devi was married to Lekh Ram. It appears that their relations after marriage were not good and this compelled Geeta Devi to file an application on her own behalf and on behalf of her children for maintenance under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure On 17.9.1986 this petition was disposed of on the statement of the parties. In his statement, the husband agreed to handover the possession of his land and house to the wife Geeta Devi in lieu of maintenance. On this basis, the petition was disposed of and the husband had specifically agreed to give full control of his house and land to his wife Geeta Devi for her maintenance. Geeta Devi in turn agreed that she would not destroy the property in any manner. Further, the husband agreed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 60/- per month to each of five children through the mother. This proposal was agreed to by the wife and in lieu of this settlement Geeta Devi was not granted any monetary maintenance but given the land and house owned and possessed by the husband Lekh Ram.

(3.) In the year 1996 Geeta Devi on her own behalf and on behalf of her four minor children filed a suit against Lekh Ram praying for a decree of declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to be maintained out of the share of the Defendant in the entire suit property. The defence taken by the husband in this suit was that the Plaintiffs are residing in the house owned by the Defendant and further that the Plaintiffs are possessing the entire land of the Defendant. According to the Defendant Lekh Ram, he was paying for the study of his sons and daughters and since his entire land and house were in possession of the wife the suit be dismissed. The suit was decreed and it was held by the learned trial Court vide his judgment and decree dated 21st April, 2003 that Geeta Devi and her children were entitled to be maintained out of the share of the Defendant in the suit property and therefore a charge was created over the entire property of the Defendant as mentioned in the plaint. However, the prayer of the Plaintiffs that the Defendant be restrained from selling or otherwise alienating the suit property was rejected, because, as rightly held by the trial Court, the transfer of the property would be subject to the aforesaid charge and the property in the hands of the transferee would be subject to the charge. Admittedly, this decree attained finality.