Bombay High Court
JUSTICE P.D. Kode
Ratan Narayan Ingale Vs. Sau. Sujeta Ratan Ingale & Ors. On 28 August 2013
Law Point:
Compromise between parties and they have started living together — Applicant is maintaining non-applicants — No propriety in continuing said orders as object sought to be achieved by passing such orders is well achieved by applicant allowing non-applicants to stay along with him and started maintaining them — For serving ends of justice, order passed by Sessions Judge quashed.
JUDGEMENT
Heard.
2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. By consent, taken out for hearing.
3. Non-applicant No. 1 present in person for herself and for non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3.
4. Mr. A.R. Sambre, learned Counsel for the applicant tenders on record the compromise deed and the affidavit in support of compromise deed which are taken on record and marked respectively as “X” and “Y“.
5. By the present application, the applicant/husband has prayed for exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the order for maintenance passed on 20th April, 2011 by the Trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Buldhana in favour of non-applicants as well as the order dated 16th February, 2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Buldhana dismissing an application in revision preferred by the applicant for assailing the said order passed by the Trial Court.
6. At the hearing of this application as narrated earlier, the applicant has tendered the compromise deed regarding the settlement arrived at in between the applicant and the non-applicants. The non-applicant No. 1 has also sworn in an affidavit in support of arriving of such a compromise. The perusal of the compromise deed reveals that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and in pursuance to the order dated 26th April, 2012 passed in this proceeding, have started residing together. The further prayer is made for quashing and setting aside the orders impugned in the application.
7. The applicant and the non-applicant No. l present before the Court and identified by the learned Counsel for the applicant upon specific query has reiterated of arrival of a compromise in between them and both of them residing together. The applicant has submitted that he will be taking care of his wife and the children i.e. non-applicants. The non-applicant No. l in her turn has submitted that since they are residing together, the orders of maintenance passed in her favour by the Trial Court and maintained by the Revisional Court be quashed and set aside.
8. The perusal of the order impugned in the petition reveals that the same were passed for enabling the non-applicants to have a maintenance for their livelihood. The compromise deed reveals that the parties have started residing together and as such the applicant is maintaining the non-applicants. In the said circumstances, there appears no propriety in continuing the said orders as the object sought to be achieved by passing such orders is well achieved by the applicant allowing the non-applicants to stay along with/him and having started maintaining them. As a matter of fact there would be likelihood of the settlement arrived not taking effect in the event of continuance of the orders impugned in the petition.
9. Resultantly for serving the ends of justice, the order dated 16th February, 2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Buldhana and order dated 20th April, 2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Buldhana impugned in the application are quashed and set aside.
10. Rule made absolute in the above terms.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment