2025:BHC-NAG:5132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2024 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO. 903 OF 2024 Sumanbai Tejrao Sarkate Aged : 72 Years, Occu : Housewife, R/o Pundlik Nagar, Ward No.16, Near Nirankari Board, Chikhli, Tahsil Chikhli, District Buldhana. ... APPELLANT V E R S U S

1. Tejrao Bhikaji Sarkate Age : 75 Years, Occu : Retired, R/o Near Post Office, Bhim Nagar, Mehkar, Tahsil Mehkar, District Buldhana.

2. District Superintendent of Police Office of the District Superintendent of Police, Buldhana, Tahsil and District Buldhana. ... RESPONDENTS Mr. R. G. Kavimandan, Advocate for Appellant.

Mr. K. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

None for the Respondent No.2.

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

DATE : MAY 07, 2025.

ORAL JUDGMENT . Heard Mr. R. G. Kavimandan, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. K. V. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1. None present for the Respondent No.2, though served.

2. The Appellant is wife of the Respondent No.1. She had filed a proceeding under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act of 2005’). In the said proceeding the Appellant/wife and Respondent No.1/husband has arrived at amicable settlement. In terms of compromise, the Respondent No.1 agreed to pay 50% of pension amount received by him to the appellant. The respondent No.1/husband also agreed to pay 50% of the amount of arrears of pension to the Appellant/wife. The terms were placed before the learned Courts and the proceeding came to be disposed of by an order passed by the learned Court disposing of the matter accepting the terms of compromise. Since the said compromise was not followed, the Appellant/wife filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 215/2022 praying for declaration that she is entitled to receive the arrears of amount of pension and monthly pension in terms of the compromise and for perpetual injunction restraining the Respondent No.2 from disbursing amount of pension to the Respondent No.1/husband. The said suit came to be decreed vide Judgment and Decree dated 6/5/2023 passed by the learned 2^nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Buldhana.

3. The learned Civil Court held that the Appellant/wife was entitled to receive 50% of the amount of pension and dismissed the suit with respect to the amount of retiral benefits, other than pension i.e. provident fund, gratuity etc.

4. The Respondent No.1/husband assailed this decree by filing appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 26/2023. The learned Principal District Judge, Buldhana has allowed the said appeal vide Judgment and Decree dated 21/11/2023 on the ground that the civil suit filed by the Appellant/wife was not maintainable.

5. Mr. Kavimandan, learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that right to receive maintenance is a civil right and a suit for enforcement of a civil right is certainly maintainable. He contends that the learned First Appellate Court has erred in holding that the suit was not maintainable.

6. Per contra, Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/husband contends that the order passed by the learned Magistrate in terms of compromise between the parties is an order passed under Section 20(1)(d) of the D. V. Act. and such orders passed are enforceable as per Section 20(6) of the said Act. Mr. Deshmukh, contends that the Act confers certain rights upon a woman and provides for remedies for enforcement of the rights. He contends that the Act is complete Code by itself, and therefore, filing of suit under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is impliedly barred. Mr. Deshmukh places reliance on the Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Anish Pramod Patel V/s Kiran Jyot Maini, AIR Online 2023 DEL 1346. It is held in the said Judgment that orders of maintenance are enforceable under section 20(6) of the Act of 2005.

7. Having heard the respective Counsel on the point of maintainability of the suit, which is the sole point, on whic