KAUR SINGH Vs. MURTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Srikaranpur dated 21 -7 -1987, where by, the learned Magistrate has held that the petitioner is duty bound to pay the arrears of maintenance to non -petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 from June 1986 to June, 1987.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly stated are: that non -petitioner No. 2 Smt. Murti and non -petitioner No. 3 Mst. Veerpal Kaur are the wife and daughter of petitioner Kaursingh. Non -petitioner No. 2 filed a petition for maintenance against the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.PC on behalf of her self and her daughter. In that petition, a compromise petition was filed by the parties. In the compromise, it was agreed by petitioner Kaursingh that be will pay Rs. 400/ - to Smt. Murti and Rs. 100/ - to Mst. Veerpal Kaur per month as maintentance. It was averred in that compromise that if at any stage, Mst. Murti starts living with petitioner Kaursingh, her husband she will not be entitled to any maintenance. It is not a conditional order as has been passed in Bhanwari Bai's case (supra), and, therefore, this case has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case.

(3.) IT was submitted that the order passed on a compromise is not enforceable. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention. The order of maintenance passed on the basis of the compromise is very much enforceable and in this respect, reliance is placed on a decision of the Punjab High Court in Ch. Dharamsingh v. Smt. Rane 1970 PLR 363.