1996 2 Crimes(SC) 86 ; 1996 3 Supreme 493
1996(2) Crimes 86 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand and Faizan Uddin, JJ.
Smt. Kanchan Devi-Appellant
versus
Promod Kumar Mittal & Anr.-Respondents
Criminal Appeal N0. 439 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (Crl):-NO 464 of 1988)
Decided on 3-4-1996
IMPORTANT POINT
Where marriage was found to have broken down irretrievably the Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution granted decree of divorce.
Constitution of India, 1950 Article 142-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Section 125-Order of maintenance-Compromise then arrived between parties whereby appellant wife agreed to accept Rs. 200 per month as maintenance arrears as against Rs. 440/- p.m. awarded by Court-Parties again separated and appellant moved application under Section 127 Cr.P.C.-Interim order by trial Court enhancing compensation passed-High Court quashed the order-Appeal-Memorandum of settlement before Supreme Court Marriage found to have broken down. irretrievably-Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce-respondent husband to pay Rs. 60,000/- to wife in terms of settlement of dispute of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Paras 5 & 6)
Result: Appeal disposed of in terms of settlement.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.142CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.125
.
JUDGMENT Dr. A.S. Anand, J.-Leave granted.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 18.4.73. According to the appellant she was thrown out of the matrinonial home after she gave birth to four female children one after the other which annoyed her in-laws. Thereafter the respondent husband neglected and refused to maintain her which compelled her to file an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. The trial court allowed the application and granted her Rs. 500/- p.m. as maintenance. In appeal. the order of maintenance was maintained but the amount was reduced to Rs. 440/- per month. The respondent moved the High Court in revision and on 6.10.82 the High Court remanded the matter for rehearing. During the pendency of the application in the trial court, it was dismissed in default and on appellant's moving an application for restoration, the same was restored by the trial court. A revision petition filed by the respondent against the order of restoration was dismissed. Subsequently, the High Court also dismissed an application filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. by the husband on 16.1.1984. While the matters rested thus it transpires from the record that the respondent husband had also filed a petition for divorce and obtained an exparte decree of divorce on 22.10.80. On a petition filed by the appellant, the ex-parte decree of divorce was set aside on 9.9.83 and subsequently the petition for divorce filed by the respondent was finally dismissed on 13.10.83. There is variance between the parties as to whether the matter is pending in appeal at the instance of the husband. No payment in the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was ever made to the appellant thereby compelling the wife to seek execution of the order. The respondent thereupon brought the appellant back to his house. It appears that a compromise was then arrived at between the parties with regard to the order of maintenance made under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and as per the terms of the compromise, the appellant agreed to accept Rs 200/- per month as maintenance arrears with effect from 10.2.1984 as against Rs. 440/- p.m. awarded in her favour. The appellant, alleges that thereafter she was once again thrown out of the matrimonial home by the respondent husband after he had made her to sign the compromise deed. She filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. on 10.12.84. The application was dismissed in default on 11.8.86 but on a petition filed by the appellant it was restored by the trial court on 29.8.86. A revision filed by the respondent before the Sessions Judge was dismissed on 9.4.87.