Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Saroj Bala @ Geeta —Petitioner
versus
Ashok Kumar Kalyan —Respondent
CRM M-37915 of 2011
Decided on 5.2.2013
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.C. Suman, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. J.S. Saneta, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Further maintenance cannot be granted after payment of lump sum amount of maintenance.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 125 and 482—Constitution of India—Article 227—Maintenance—Marriage has been dissolved by decree of divorce with mutual consent under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, wherein parties have effected compromise and statements have been recorded before Matrimonial Court that petitioner has accepted lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000 as a full and final settlement for maintenance—Parties are bound by terms of compromise as well as statements made before Matrimonial Court at time of grant of divorce of mutual consent—After divorce by mutual consent and when parties are residing separately and lump sum amount of maintenance as a full and final settlement has already been accepted, petitioner-wife is not entitled to maintenance—Impugned order affirmed. (Paras 6 to 9)
Result: Petition dismissed.
Paramjeet Singh, J.— Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure P4) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby order dated 20.9.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambala Cantt, in an application under Section 125 of the Code has been set aside and the application under Section 125 of the Code has been ordered to be dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 4.11.1996 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. No issue was born from the marriage. Initially, respondent Ashok Kumar Kalyan filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). During the pendency of that petition, the parties jointly moved an application under Section 13B of the Act for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent. During the course of those proceedings, a compromise was effected between the parties and the statements of the parties were recorded. Statement of the petitioner recorded before the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala reads as under:
“I have heard the above recorded statement of petitioner Ashok. The same is correct. It is true that we after marriage could barely lived together for 20 days and could not adjust with each other’s temperament. I had left the matrimonial home on account of grave differences and is living separately since 12.2.1999. We had entered into compromise Ex.C1. I had received rupees one lac from petitioner Ashok Kumar towards full and final claim of my maintenance etc. and have already withdrawn complaint under Sections 498 and 498A IPC which was pending at Jammu. The copy of said order is Ex.C2. I had also withdrawn the maintenance petition filed by me and the copy of said order is Ex.C3. It is not possible for us to live together as husband and wife and, therefore, our marriage may be dissolved by granting a decree of divorce.”
3. The petitioner has received Rs.l,00,000 from the respondent towards full and final claim of maintenance etc. and all the other proceedings had been withdrawn between the parties. Even the maintenance petition filed by the petitioner was also withdrawn. On considering these facts, the learned Sessions Judge set aside order dated 20.9.2010 of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Hence, this instant petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that if the mutual divorce is granted and the amount is received in lump sum in lieu of maintenance as full and final settlement, even then divorced wife is entitled to maintenance till she remarries. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Sushil Kumar v. Neelam, 2004 Cri. LJ 3690 (1) and judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Sankar Soren v. State of W.B. & Anr., 2004 Cri. LJ 3088 to contend that the petitioner is entitled to maintenance and the order of the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that divorce has been granted with mutual consent. The petitioner has accepted the maintenance in lump sum to the tune of Rs.l,00,000 as per status of the parties and the said amount of maintenance has been paid by the respondent to the petitioner in full and final settlement. The withdrawal of the application for maintenance by the petitioner in pursuance of the compromise is also indicative of the fact that the petitioner has accepted the amount as a full and final settlement which includes maintenance and the parties are residing separately. Learned counsel for the respondent ha
