Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 438 (UTT)

Mehtab v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-06-26

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
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. 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 to arrears falling after 14.07.2018, when the first recovery case was decided on the basis of the compromise, in which, a statement was given by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 that they had received all the arrears till that date. 8. 2 and 3 that they had received all the arrears till that date. 8. The compromise, which took place in the first recovery case is not conditional. The compromise has been filed, as Annexure No.2. It categorically records that the respondent no.2 on that date had accepted that she had received entire arrears, as on that date. This is categorical admission of the respondent no.2. Parties could not stay together, though as per compromise, they were willing to do so on that date. 9. Since the compromise of first recovery case was not conditional and there the respondent no.2 had admitted that she had received all the arrears till then, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 cannot claim any arrears prior to 14.07.2018. To that extent, indulgence of this Court is required. Now, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 cannot claim arrears of interim maintenance prior to 14.07.2018 pursuant to the judgment dated 22.02.2017 passed in the maintenance case. They may claim maintenance after 14.07.2018, except the period for which the respondent nos. 2 and 3 stayed with the revisionist. 10. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 11. The revision stands disposed of accordingly. 12. The money that is deposited by the revisionist before this Court pursuant to order dated 27.09.2019 shall be remitted to the court concerned.