JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 09.03.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (Judge Small Causes) Srinagar, in a petition filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act (hereafter for short “the D.V. Act”). Challenge has also been thrown to the petition filed by the respondent against the petitioner under the provisions of the D.V.Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

3. It appears that the respondent-wife has filed a petition under Section 12 of the D.V.Act against the petitioner herein, who happens to be her husband. Vide order dated 09.03.2021, passed by the learned trial Magistrate, certain directions came to be passed which are reproduced as under:-

“i. The respondent is restrained from committing acts of domestic violence directly or indirectly on the aggrieved person;

ii. The respondent shall pay a monthly monetary relief of Rs.10,000/=(Ten thousand) to the Aggrieved Person;

iii. The respondent shall pay a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/=(ten thousand) to enable the Aggrieved person to arrange her accommodation as per her convenience and safety.

iv. The incharge/Branch head of Bank of India, branch Mall Road, Amritsar is directed not to allow the respondent or his father Naval Chug to operate the Locker jointly maintained in their names and Incharge/Branch Head Punjab National Bank, branch Green Anenue, Amritsar is directed not to allow operation of lockiers maintained in the joint names of Ritu Chug and Naval Chug in which golden ornaments of the Aggrieved Person are stated to have been deposited. The concerned branch heads shall file their report by or before next date.

v. SHO P/S Ram Munshi Bagh is appointed as protection Officer who shall ensure that the order is implemented and he shall ensure that the order and summons are served on the respondent and the concerned branches of the banks.”

4. The aforesaid directions were passed in ex parte and same were made subject to objections of other side. It appears that during the pendency of the petition some settlement took place between the parties and the same was reduced into writing vide document dated 21.09.2021. Vide the said compromise the parties undertook to adhere to the certain terms and conditions as contained in the said document. It appears that after the execution of the aforesaid document, the respondent made a statement before the trial Magistrate on 03.06.2022 that the petitioner is not adhering to the terms and conditions of the compromise. The learned Magistrate on the basis of this statement directed the counsel for the petitioner herein to produce the petitioner in Court and further directed that interim order dated 29.03.2021 shall remain in operation.

5. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged only one ground of challenge to the impugned order dated 09.03.2021 and the impugned petition. According to the learned Senior Counsel, once a compromise was arrived at between the parties, neither the impugned complaint nor the impugned order could have been revived by the learned trial Magistrate. According to the learned Sr. Counsel if the respondent had any grievance against the petitioner she could have filed another petition under the provisions of the D.V.Act but the earlier petition and the orders passed thereon could not have been revived.

6. It is a settled law that merely because a settlement had taken place between the warring spouses, the order of maintenance granted by a Magistrate as also the proceedings initiated by the wife against her husband do not get wiped out if the settlement does not work. In this regard I am fortified by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahua Biswas (Smt) vs. Swagata Biswam and anr., (1998) 2 SCC 359, wherein it has been clearly laid down that when a settlement has been arrived at, the previous orders of maintenance in such a case could at best be taken to ha