NARBADA Vs. DR. MURLIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.9.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi whereby in the revision filed by the respondent husband against the order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj in the Criminal Misc. Case No. 52/2010 refusing to drop the proceedings under Sec. 127 Code Criminal Procedure has been quashed.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has filed an application under Sec. 125 Code Criminal Procedure against the respondent her husband and the application was decided on 4.8.2004 and it was directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to receive Rs.12100.00 per month as maintenance and simultaneously it was also concluded by compromise that either of the parties shall not be entitled to make a prayer for alteration in the said amount in future. Thereafter owning to the rising cost of living, the petitioner moved an application under Sec. 127 Criminal Procedure Code The respondent appeared before the learned Magistrate and filed a preliminary objection praying that the proceedings be dropped because the same were initiated in contravention to the agreement entered into between the parties. The preliminary objection was rejected on which the respondent husband preferred a revision before the learned Single Judge which has been allowed by order dated 12.9.2011 impugned in the instant miscellaneous petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decisions reported in Balak Ram Vs. State, reported in 1973 Cri.L.J. 750 , Haroon Vs. Sainabha, reported in 1992 Cri.L.J. 3275 , Ranjit Kaur Vs. Pavittar Singh, reported in 1992 Cri.L.J. 262 , Hanamant Basappa Choudhari Vs. Smt. Laxmawwa, reported in 2002 Cri.L.J. 4397 and Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 Cri.L.J. 139 , submits that any contract entered into between the parties which is against the specific provisions of law cannot be said to be anything but an unconscionable contract and as such no credence can be given to such an agreement. Learned counsel submits that the agreement which was entered into in the earlier proceedings under Sec. 125 Code Criminal Procedure was totally against the letter and spirit of Sec. 127 Code Criminal Procedure and thus, the petitioner was not dis entitled to move to the trial Court praying for alteration in the amount of maintenance by filing an application under Sec. 127 Criminal Procedure Code