MOHINI KAPUR, J.—The petitioner and the non-petitioner are husband and wife and a decree for divorce was passed by the District Judge, Bundi on basis of a compromise arrived at between them. Before looking into this compromise it may be stated that three proceedings were pending between the parties. The husband instituted proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the court of District Judge, Bundi and the wife had moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. Another criminal case was pending against the petitoner-husband and others for the offences under Sections 494 read with 109 IPC and this was also pending in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. While all these three cases were pending, the parties arrived at a compromise in the proceedings under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and this compromise was presented before the District Judge, Bundi on 2nd February, 1988. By virtue of this compromise, a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was paid to the wife and it was agreed that in future she would not be entitled to any maintenance from the husband. It was also mentioned that the wife would not be entitled to any maintenance in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and she would apply before that court for concluding the proceedings. A condition was imposed that if in accordance with this compromise, the wife did not get the proceedings terminated, a certified copy of the compromise would be produced before the court and then the proceedings would be dropped. Similarly it was agreed in the aforesaid compromise dated 2. 2. 88 that the wife would move an application withdrawing the case under Section 494 read with 109 I.P.C. and in case she did not withdraw the same, a certified copy of the compromise would be presented before the court and it would be stipulated that there has been a compromise in that case also. The parties further agreed that the marriage be dissolved by a decree of divorce. This compromise was verified by the District Judge, Bundi and in terms of the compromise a decree for divorce was passed. It has been mentioned in the decree that a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was paid to the wife.

2. In pursuance of this compromise, the wife Geeta Devi did not file an application for withdrawal of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and for the case under Sections 494 and 109 IPC. In such circumstances, the husband petitioner submitted a certified copy of the compromise before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Tonk in both the cases and requested the court that in view of the compromise both the proceedings should be dismissed.

3. The present order deasls with the proceedings on the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It may be mentioned here that at the time when the compromise decree was passed in the divorce petition, two other compromise agreements were also recorded and signed by both the husband and wife which were to be presented before the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Tonk for purpose of verifica-tion. The wife resiled and stated that she was not explained the full implication of the compromise and that she had only compromised the divorce petition and not the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. As the compromise was not verified, the Magistrate proceeded to decide the plea raised by the husband and wife. It was held that as the parties did not present and got the compromise verified hence, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. could not be dismissed on the basis of a compromise in the divorce petition. It was held that the com-promise in the divorce petition and the observations made in the decree could, not be made basis for the disposal of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and as such, the application moved by the husband was dismissed. Against this order, the petitioner has filed this present petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that when the parties compromised the divorce petition before

Click Here to Read the rest of this document