Back
2010 (2) GCD 1209 (Guj)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi R. Tripathi
Shripatsinh Keshrisinh Ranawat
Versus
State of Gujarat & Anr.
Special Criminal Application No. 690 of 2005—Decided on 18/01/2010
Held :
If such a stand is allowed to be taken by any party, it will render all matters which stood finalised on entering a compromise and that will give rise to an atmosphere of uncertainty which will not be good for the people and the Society. Generally when any matter is compromised, parties do take that the matter has come to an end and it is finally concluded. It is very easy to say that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. operates in a different field, than the field which is covered by civil matter. But in fact, what was compromised by settled by Respondent No. 2 in civil matter was her right of maintenance. That being so, once that matter is settled, the right of Respondent No. 2 to get maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. does not survive because interse relationship between the parties comes to an end. [Para 7]
The complexion of the matter would have been different, if Respondent No. 2 had obtained an order of grant of maintenance in the civil Court and the matter was not settled, as a ‘full and final settlement’, then possibly it would have been possible for Respondent No. 2 to invoke Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.. The Court would have examined this question if the facts would have been so. The Court is of the opinion that when the parties have settled their interse rights in a Civil Court, one cannot have recourse under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. [Para 7.1]
Law Laid Down :
When parties have settled their interse rights in a civil Court one can not have recourse under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by filing of criminal proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being Criminal Misc. Application No. 85 of 2002 in the Court of learned JMFC, Rajpipla by Respondent No. 2 and also by judgment and order passed therein, which was the subject matter of Criminal Revision Application No. 202 of 2004 before the learned Joint District Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch camp Rajpipla, which was decided by judgment and order dated 7.4.2005. The prayers made in the present petition read as under:—
“A. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 7th April, 2005 passed by the Ld. Joint District & Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch camp at Rajpipla in Criminal Revision Application No. 202 of 2004 and further be pleased and set aside the order dated 18th August 2004 passed by the Ld. J.M.F.C. at Rajpipla in Criminal Misc. Application No. 85 of 2002.
B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the proceedings of Misc.Criminal Application No. 85 of 2002 pending before the Ld. J.M.F.C. at Rajpipla, Dist.Narmada.
C. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, your lordships may be pleased to stay the proceedings of Misc.Criminal Application No. 85 of 2002 pending before the Ld. J.M.F.C., Rajpipla.
D. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, your lordships may be pleased to stay the orders at Annexure-A & B to this petition.
E. Any other relief deemed just and proper may please be granted in the interest of justice.”
2. The case of the petitioner as set-out in Paragraphs 1 and 2 reads as under, which is reproduced for the ready perusal:—
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 7th April, 2005 passed by the Ld. Joint District & Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch camp Rajpipla in Criminal Revision Application No. 202 of 2004. Annexed hereto collectively and marked as Annexure-A are the copies of memo of Revision Application and order passed therein. The Ld. Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order rejected the said application filed by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order dated 18th August, 2004 passed by Ld. J.M.F.C., Rajpipla in Criminal Misc. Application No. 85 of 2002 filed by the Respondent No. 2 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Annexed hereto collectively and marked as Annexure-B are the copies of application for preliminary issue and order dated 18th August, 2004 passed by the J.M.F.C., Rajpipla in Criminal Misc. Application No. 85 of 2002.
2. The facts of the case are as under:—
A. The marriage of the petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 02.05.1955 according to hindu rites at Rajpipla. Due to wedlock between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2, the Respondent No. 2 gave birth to three children. Now all the children have become major and they have settled in their life.
B. The Respondent No. 2 wife Ushakumari had filed Civil Suit No. 4745 of 1978 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad as a pauper seeking inter-alia relief/s as under:
(a) allow the plaintiffs applicants to file this suit as pauper and be pleased to pass a decree directing to the defendant to pay Rs. 1000.00 per month as maintenance to the plaintiff No. 1;
(b) Rs. 250.00 per month as maintenance to the plaintiff No. 2;
(c) Directing the defendant to pay Rs. 98,000.00 as maintenance from April, 1969 to May, 1977 for eight years and 2 months as the rate of Rs. 1000.00 per month and Rs. 250.00 as maintenance of plaintiff No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 250.00 per month with running interest at 12 percent;
C. The petitioner submits that after hearing and recording evidence from both t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
