SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
NAGENDRAPPA NATIKAR - Petitioner
VERSUS
NEELAMMA - Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11800 of 2013 [Arising out of C.C. No. 1297 of 2012]
Decided on : 15-3-2013.
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Intended to provide speedy remedy and not full and final determination of the status and personal rights of parties which can be done only in a civil proceeding - Hence any order u/s 125 by compromise or otherwise cannot foreclose remedy available u/s 18(2), HAMA. (Paras 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
The question in this case is whether a compromise entered into by husband and wife under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, agreeing for a consolidated amount towards permanent alimony, thereby giving up any future claim for maintenance, accepted by the Court in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would preclude the wife from claiming maintenance in a suit filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
Finding of the Court:
Any order u/s 125 by compromise or otherwise cannot foreclose remedy available u/s 18(2), HAMA.
Result : Petition dismissed.
Key Points: - A compromise reached between parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, agreeing for a consolidated amount towards permanent alimony and giving up future claims, accepted by the Court in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not preclude the wife from claiming maintenance in a suit filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 [1000526450001][1000526450008]. - Section 125 Cr.P.C. is intended to provide a summary and speedy relief and not a full and final determination of the status and personal rights of parties [1000526450009]. - Any order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by compromise or otherwise cannot foreclose the remedy available to a wife under Section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 [1000526450010]. - A suit for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is maintainable in spite of a compromise reached between the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3, CPC (!) . - The Family Court decreed the suit holding that the respondent is entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month from the defendant husband from the date of the filing of the suit [1000526450005]. - The petition was dismissed [1000526450011].
JUDGMENT
K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.:- Delay condoned.
2. The question that is raised for consideration in this case is whether a compromise entered into by husband and wife under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), agreeing for a consolidated amount towards permanent alimony, thereby giving up any future claim for maintenance, accepted by the Court in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), would preclude the wife from claiming maintenance in a suit filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short “the Act’).
3. The marriage between the petitioner (husband) and respondent (wife) took place on 24.5.1987. Alleging that the petitioner is not maintaining his wife, respondent filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance before the 1st Additional JMFC at Gulbarga, being Misc. Case No. 234 of 1992. While the matter was pending, an application was preferred by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC on 3.9.1994 stating that the parties had arrived at a compromise, by which the respondent had agreed to receive an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards permanent alimony and that she would not make any claim for maintenance in future or enhancement of maintenance. Consent letter dated 30.3.1990, which is in Kannada, the English translation of the same reads as follow:
“Consent letter: I, Neelamma W/o Nagendra Natikar, Age 23 years, R/o Old Shahabad, do hereby execute this consent letter in favour of my husband Nagendra Natikar with free will and consent without coercion and misrepresentation. After my marriage with Nagendra Natikar, I could not lead marital life happy with my husband due to my ill health as prior to my marriage I was suffering from backache, Paralysis stroke to my left hand and left leg and was also suffering from epilepsy (Fits disease) and therefore I have myself decided to withdraw from marital life. I have given my consent for mutual divorce. I have no objection if my husband would contract second marriage with someone. Prior to my marriage I was suffering from chronic disease. I had asked my father not to celebrate her marriage with anyone. My father forcibly got marriage with Nagendrappa Natikar. Henceforth I will not make any further claims and also forfeit my rights in future and I will not claim compensation or maintenance or alimony. I am satisfied with the payment of Rs.8000/- and I will not make any further claims against my husband.
I have executed this consent letter in favoaur of my husband without any force of anybody and free from misrepresentation or coercion. My father-mother or nay other family members have no objection for executing this consent letter.
Signature of Executant
Neelamma
(Signed in Kannada))
Signature of witnesses:
1. Tippanna (signed in Kannada)
2. Devindrappa (signed in Kannada)
3. Syed Zabiullah Sahab (signed scribe)”
The Court, on the same day, passed the following order:
“Parties both present. Both parties and advocates files compromise petition. The contents of the compromise petition is read over and explained to them. They admit the execution of the same before court. Respondent paid Rs.8000/- (eight thousand) before court towards full satisfaction of the maintenance as per compromise recorded. In view of the compromise, petition dismissed.”
4. Respondent wife then filed a Misc. Application no. 34 of 2003 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Gulbarga for cancellation of the earlier order and also for awarding future maintenance, which was resisted by the petitioner stating that the parties had already reached a compromise with regard to the claim for maintenance on 3.9.1994 and hence the application for cancellation of the earlier order is not maintainable. The Court accepted the plea of the husband and took the view that since such an order was still in force and not set aside by a competent Court, it would not be possible to entertain an application under Secti
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.