Back
2014 Supreme(HP) 343
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAJIV SHARMA, J.
Pritam Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
Nirmala Devi - Respondent
Cr.MMO No.41/2012
Decided on : 9.4.2014
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a valid and binding compromise agreement under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can estop a party from claiming future maintenance, and the terms and conditions of the agreement are enforceable.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Compromise under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - 125, 127, 489 - The court discussed the validity of the compromise agreement under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and its impact on the right to claim future maintenance. The court referred to various legal provisions and interpretations to determine the enforceability of the agreement and the right to claim maintenance.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was granted maintenance of Rs. 450 per month by the Gram Panchayat under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A compromise agreement was reached between the parties, where the petitioner transferred a house to the respondent in lieu of maintenance. Despite the agreement, the respondent filed a fresh application for enhancement of maintenance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the agreement between the parties, where the petitioner transferred a house to the respondent in lieu of maintenance, was valid and binding. The court held that the respondent was estopped from filing a petition for enhancement after the execution of the agreement. The terms and conditions of the agreement were deemed valid and binding on the parties.
Issues: The key issue was the enforceability of the compromise agreement under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and its impact on the right to claim future maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles established in previous judgments to determine that the agreement between the parties was valid and binding. It emphasized that the agreement under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be deemed against public policy and that the respondent had been compensated by the transfer of the house in her favor.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and set aside the orders passed by the lower courts, holding that the respondent was estopped from claiming any future maintenance after the execution of the valid and binding agreement.
Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
This petition is instituted against the order dated 23.2.2012 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (2), Kangra at Dharmshala in Cri. Revision No. 22/2011.
2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent was granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 450/-per month by the Gram Panchayat, Bhatalla vide order dated 25.6.1997 in petition No.211-IV/93 under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Respondent filed an application under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala seeking enhancement of the maintenance from Rs. 450/-per month to Rs. 5,000/-per month. Petitioner filed reply to the same. It was specifically averred in the reply that application was not maintainable in view of the compromise in case No. 26-IV/2001 dated 20.10.2001 whereby vide agreement petitioner has given two storeyed Pucca house comprised in Khasra No.841 situated at Mohal Naddi, Mauza and Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra to respondent. It was exclusively owned and possessed by respondent in lieu of maintenance for present and future. He has executed sale deed in favour of respondent vide sale deed dated 10.2.2003. Respondent had also withdrawn a sum of Rs.50,000/-from Punjab National Bank, Mecleodganj, Dharamshala. She has also kept the valuable articles with her. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra atDharamshala enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 450/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. Petitioner filed revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala. He dismissed the same on 23.2.2012. Hence, the present petition.
3. Mr. Ajay Sharma has vehemently argued that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties vide Annexure RW-1/B, the application preferred by respondent under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not maintainable. He has also contended that his client in lieu of present and future maintenance has also executed sale deed of two storeyed house in favour of respondent. Respondent is owner of the house.
4. Mr. Digvijay Singh has vehemently argued that agreement Ex.RW-1/B was against the public policy.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.
6. It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs. 450/-per month was granted to respondent by the Gram Panchayat on 25.6.1997. She filed execution petition in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. The matter was compromised between the parties vide Ex.RW-1/B. According to the conditions, enumerated in the agreement, petitioner has transferred two storeyed house comprised in Khasra No.841 situated at Mohal Naddi, Mauza and Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra in the name of respondent for present and future maintenance. She was free to use the premises. She was declared to be owner of the property. Two sons, Ajay Kumar and Vijay Kumar were also permitted to stay in the house. Respondent had undertaken to withdraw the case pending before the Sub Judge (2), Dharamshala. She had also specifically undertaken that she would not claim any maintenance in future after the transfer of house in her name. The agreement was signed by both the parties in presence of Ajay Kumar and R.S. Rana, Advocate. In sequel to compromise Ex.RW-1/A, Lok Adalat passed the following order:
“20.10.2001 :
Present: Petitioner with counsel Sh. K.C. Sharma, Adv.
Respondent with counsel Sh. R.S. Rana, Adv.
Conciliation effected between the parties before the Lok Adalat.
The parties have placed on record Ex.C-1 duly executed compromise deed, which is Ex. C-1, it is ordered that the petitioner shall not press the execution petition for payment of maintenance; hence, the petition is dismissed as unpressed. The file be sent forthwith to the concerned court.”
7. In addition to agreement Ex.RW-1/B and order dated 20.10.2001, respondent, Ajay Kumar and Vijay Kumar have also executed affidavit date
