ANKUSH Vs. RANJANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Ms. Hande, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kalwaghe, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. None appears for respondent No. 1 though served. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6/8/2011 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Buldhana in Criminal Revision Application No. 39/2008 whereby by partly allowing the revision, the revisional Court rejected the claim of respondent No. 1 and confirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court granting maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month to respondent No. 2, who is a minor daughter of petitioner, from the date of filing application. It appears that before filing present petition, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure being Criminal Application No. 104/2012 challenging the order passed by the revisional Court, which application was, however, allowed to be withdrawn with leave to file appropriate writ petition against the impugned order and accordingly, the present petition came to be filed.

(2.) To understand the controversy involved in this petition, few facts are stated as follows:

(3.) According to petitioner, in view of above compromise terms, he has paid Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldhana on 12/7/2005 for which respondent No. 1 has issued acknowledgment before the said Court and as such, according to petitioner, in view of terms of compromise, respondent No. 1 has specifically agreed that in future, she will not claim any maintenance amount. On the basis of the terms of compromise as above, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldhana passed consent decree in H.M.P. No. 51/2005. However-, to the surprise of the petitioner, even after passing consent decree as aforesaid, respondent No. 1 did not withdraw Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 208/2004 from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chikhli, which was fixed for hearing on 16/7/2005 and petitioner had also placed on record before the said Court consent decree passed in H.M.P. No. 51/2005. However, the learned trial Court without considering the same, ordered petitioner to pay amount of Rs. 1500/- per month each to both the respondents from the date of application. It is the case of the petitioner that the order of the learned trial Court is thus contrary to the terms of the consent decree and thus, he assailed the same by filing revision being Criminal Revision Application No. 39/2008 before the Sessions Judge, Buldhana, which revision by the impugned order dated 6/8/2011 came to be partly allowed, thereby quashing the order passed by the learned trial Court granting maintenance to respondent No. 1 and recording a finding that the respondent No. 2 alone is entitled for maintenance. The petitioner has assailed the said order vide present petition.