Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 152
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Mehtab - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others - Respondents
Criminal Revision No.569 of 2019
Decided On : 26-06-2024
For the Applicant :Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. M.A. Khan, A.G.A., Mr. S.C. Burman, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
A compromise in maintenance cases, if unconditionally accepted, limits future claims to amounts not covered by the agreement.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 125, 125(3) - The court interpreted the provisions regarding maintenance and arrears, emphasizing the binding nature of a compromise and the implications of relinquishing claims on future entitlements.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist was directed to pay maintenance arrears to the respondents after they filed for recovery due to non-payment, despite a prior compromise stating they had received all arrears.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents had relinquished their claim to arrears based on a prior compromise, which was not conditional, thus limiting their entitlement to maintenance after the date of the compromise.
Issues: Whether the respondents are entitled to maintenance arrears prior to the compromise date or only after it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents could not claim arrears prior to the compromise date as they had admitted to receiving all dues up to that point, establishing the binding nature of the compromise.
Result: The impugned order was modified to limit the respondents' claim to maintenance after the compromise date.
JUDGMENT :
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :
The challenge in this revision is made to the order dated 14.08.2019, passed in Misc. Case No. 129 of 2018, Shabana Vs. Mehtab, by the court of Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar (“the second recovery case”). By it, the revisionist has been directed to pay entire arrears of maintenance to the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) seeking maintenance from the revisionist, which was the basis of Case No. 146 of 2013, Smt. Shabana and others Vs. Mehtab (“the maintenance case”), which was decided on 22.02.2017 and the revisionist was directed to pay total Rs.5,000/- per month (Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent no.2 and Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent no.3). When the arrears were not paid, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed an application under Section 125 (3) of the Code seeking arrears, which is the basis of Case No. 27 of 2017, Smt. Shabana Vs. Mehtab (“the first recovery case”). In the first recovery case, the parties entered into an agreement on 26.02.2018, in which the respondent nos. 2 and 3 had categorically admitted that they have received the entire arrears till then and in case the revisionist makes default in maintaining them, they would claim it through court. Based on the compromise between the parties, the first recovery case was decided in the Lok Adalat on 14.07.2018.
4. It appears that the relations between parties did not remain cordial for a long. Therefore, on 15.11.2018, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed another application under Section 125 (3) of the Code, seeking arrears of maintenance on the ground that the revisionist did not fulfil the condition of the compromise, based on which, the first recovery case was decided, which is the basis of the second recovery case.
5. In the second recovery case, on behalf of the revisionist argument was raised that on 14.07.2018, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 had relinquished entire arrears therefore, the application for recovery of arrears may be dismissed. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order, the court directed the revisionist to pay entire arrears. One of the reasons for such conclusion is that the arrears were relinquished by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 on the premise that they would stay with the revisionist, which they did not follow. It is this order, which is impugned.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that in the first recovery case, parties had entered into a compromise, which is Annexure 2 to the revision, in which the respondent nos. 2 and 3 had admitted that they had received the entire arrears, as on that date. It is argued that the first recovery case was decided in the Lok Adalat on the basis of the compromise between the parties. Therefore, now the respondent nos. 2 and 3 cannot claim any arrears prior to 14.07.2018, when the first recovery case was decided on the basis of the compromise and on which date, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 had admitted of having received all the arrears.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 would submit that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 did not receive entire arrears on 14.07.2018. He would submit that in the hope that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 would stay with the revisionist, they had relinquished their claim of arrears. But, it is argued that the revisionist had a design in his mind. The revisionist wanted to close all the cases, under the garb of the compromise. Once compromise was done, for some duration, the revisionist did stay with the respondent nos.2 and 3, but again he deserted them and neglected them of their maintenance.
7. The question for determination is, as to whether the respondent nos. 2 and 3 would be entitled to all the arrears pursuant to judgment dated 22.02.2017, passed in the maintenance case or they would be entitled t
