- (1.) N. B. Asthana, J. Smt. Rajpati Devi tiled suit No. 314 of 1988 for restitution of conjugal rights against the revisionist. A compromise was arrived at on 3-11-1988. In terms of this compromise the revisionist was to take the opposite party with him and to keep her with him. In case of default he was to pay Rs. 500 as maintenance allowance. According to the opposite party the revisionist did not come to take her and, therefore, she became entitled to the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500 per month. The accordingly filed an application for the recovery of the maintenance allowance. The revisionist filed an objection stating that she has married Ram Narain Yadav son of Baleshwar Yadav, resident of village Parsadpur, P. S. Ghanghata, Basti on 15-11-1989 and, therefore, she is not entitled to get mainte nance allowance. The Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur rejected this application and directed Block Development Officer, Jungle, Kaudia Block to deduct Rs. 750 per month from the salary of the revisionist for payment to the opposite party in settlement, of the current and past maintenance allowance. Aggrieved by this order the revisionist has come to this Court.
(2.) NONE appeared on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision. I have heard learned counsel for the opposite party, Sri Rajeev Chaddha and have perused the material available on record. It was denied on behalf of the opposite party that she married Ram Narain Yadav or any other person. According to her the revisionist did not follow the terms of the compromise and in order to avoid payment of the maintenance allowance has taken false plea of her having been re-married. The Judge Family Court, Gorakhpur came to the conclusion that the compromise decree was arrived at in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and, therefore, objection under Section 127 (3), Cr. P. C. was not maintainable. He was further of the opinion that according to the allegations made by the revisionist the opposite party re-married on 15-11-1989. He was, therefore, liable to pay the maintenance allowance from 3-11-1988 to 15-11-1989. He was further of the opinion that the execution application was filed on 19-4-89 but the objection by the revisionist was filed on 12-11-1991. He was also of the opinion that the source of knowledge regarding re-marriage of the opposite party has not been disclosed. He was also of the opinion that the objection is mala fide with a view to avoid the payment of maintenance allowance. The objection was accordingly dismissed,
(3.) FROM the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur it appears that the maintenance allowence was claimed for the period 3-11-1988 to 19-4-1989. The opposite party is alleged to have married on 15-11-1989. Even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that this marriage was perform ed, the liability of the revisionist to payment of maintenance allowance till 15-11-1989 would subsist. In view of the above the court below rightly rejected the objection. The revision has no force and is dismissed. Stay order dated 13-8-1993 is vacated. Revision dismissed. .;