Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1243 (JHR)

Nischal Parihar v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-24

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. K. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 26.02.2015 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in M.P. Case No. 343 of 2011, whereby the application preferred by the opposite party No. 2 under section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to make make payment of monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month and also for payment of Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation cost. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties and an application being I.A. No. 1053 of 2017 has been filed by way of joint compromise and pursuant to the terms and conditions of compromise, an amount of Rs. 7 Lakhs, as permanent alimony has already been paid to the opposite party No. 2 by the petitioner. It has also been submitted that an application under section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for mutual dissolution of marriage was also filed and the said suit has been allowed vide judgment and decree dated 14.07.2017 passed in Original Suit (MTS) No. 12 of 2017 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. Learned counsel further submits that since the terms and conditions also included setting aside the order passed by learned Principal Judge, Dhanbad, the same be set aside in view of the terms and conditions so arrived at between the parties. 4. Mr. D. K. Chakrabarty, Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and submitted that opposite party No. 2 has already received Rs. 7 Lakhs, as permanent alimony and she does not want to proceed any further with the 125 Cr.P.C. proceeding instituted by her against the petitioner. 5. It appears from I.A. No. 1053 of 2017 that the matter has finally been settled between the parties and the terms and conditions of settlement has been mentioned in Para-5 of the said application. It further appears that the both the parties were ready to file a petition under section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for mutual dissolution of marriage and in lieu of that the petitioner was to pay Rs. It further appears that the both the parties were ready to file a petition under section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for mutual dissolution of marriage and in lieu of that the petitioner was to pay Rs. 07 Lakhs to the opposite party No. 2 by way of permanent alimony out of which the petitioner has paid Rs. 04 Lakhs prior to filing of the said petition and Rs. 3 Lakhs was to be paid prior to decree prepared in the said petition. The terms and conditions also include a case filed under section 498A I.P.C. r/w Section 4 of the D.P. Act in which the petitioner had been convicted. It further appears that a suit filed under section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been decreed vide judgment dated 14.07.2017 passed in Original suit (MTS) No. 12 of 2017. As has been stated by learned counsel for the parties that rest amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs has already been deposited pursuant to the decree of dissolution of marriage passed vide judgment dated 14.07.2017. 6. In view of the fact that the opposite party No. 2 has already received permanent alimony of Rs. 7 Lakhs prior to the decree of dissolution of marriage passed in Original Suit (MTS) No. 12 of 2017 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi pursuant to settlement so arrived at between the parties, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.02.2015 passed learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in M.P. Case No. 343 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. Pending I.A. also stands disposed of.