- (1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the orders dated 17-4-2004, 22-7-2004 and 11- 8- 2004 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Allahabad in Execution Case No. 7 of 2004, Suman Shukla v. Sarvesh Shukla.
(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this application are that Smt. Suman Shukla, O. P. No. 4 in the present case and her two daughters, namely, Shrishti Shukla and Astha Shukla had filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. against her husband, Sarvesh Kumar Shukla, husband of applicant No. 1 and father of applicants No. 2 and 3, for recovery of maintenance allowance, which was registered as Case No. 29/2001, and in this case a compromise was filed on 3-12-2001, in which it was stated that Smt. Suman Shukla was the first legally wedded wife of the applicant and she had given birth to two daughters, Shrishti Shukla and Astha Shukla out of this wedlock and so it was agreed that Sarvesh Kumar Shukla shall pay Rs. 3,600/- per month to Smt. Suman Shukla for maintenance of herself and her two daughters. It was further provided in the said compromise that this amount shall be payable monthly during the entire life of Smt. Suman Shukla. It was further provided in the said compromise that in case Sarvesh Kumar Shukla fails to pay the amount regularly in the second week of every month, the amount may be recovered from his salary. It was also provided that Sarvesh Kumar Shukla shall perform marriage of Kumari Shrishti and Kumari Astha Shukla. This compromise was verified in Lok Adalat on 3-2- 2002 and the case was decided in terms of compromise. Since Sarvesh Kumar Shukla failed to pay this amount, Suman Shukla filed an application for execution of the above order in which she stated that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- only was paid by Sarvesh Kumar Shukla once only and thereafter nothing was paid by him and a sum of Rs. 84,400/- was due from him. This application was moved on 17-1-2004. On this application Presiding Officer of the Court passed an order on 17- 4-2004 to this effect that proceedings for recovery of arrears of maintenance for the period more than one year were time barred, so he passed an order for issuing recovery warrant of Rs. 54,000/- only against the present applicant. Since the amount was not received by deduction from the salary of the applicant, the order was passed on 22-7- 2007 directing to issue contempt notice to the Chief Treasury Officer with a direction to deduct Rs. 4,000/- per month from the salary of the applicant. THEreafter on 31-7-2004 Sarvesh Kumar Shukla filed an objection in which he alleged that he had paid Rs. 3,70,000/- to Smt. Suman Shukla and she had received this amount in full and final settlement of her claim of maintenance and so he was not liable to pay any amount to her. He filed a photostat copy of consent letter also allegedly executed by Smt. Suman Shukla before a Notary. On this objection, the Court passed order on 31-7-2004 that objection is not maintainable in execution case and he was directed to file separate miscellaneous case. Against these three orders the applicant, Sarvesh Kumar Shukla has filed this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. before this Court. In this case counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the affidavit filed in support of this application, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit and also the copies of documents which have been filed with those affidavits. It is to be seen that a compromise arrived at between the parties whereby the applicant had promised to pay Smt. Suman Shukla Rs. 3,600/- per month was filed in the criminal case under Section 125, Cr. P. C. and after hearing the parties a decree in terms thereof was passed by the Court. Now if any subsequent agreement changing the terms and conditions of that compromise has been genuinely executed by the parties, the proper procedure for the applicant was to file that compromise before the Court and to get the same verified before the Court, so that it could be recognized as the subsequent compromise, and in that case the terms and conditions varied by subsequent compromise could be enforced, but in the present case it was not done. The so called subsequent compromise was allegedly executed on 13-4-2002 and it was filed before the Court for the first time on 31-7-2004. It is also to be seen that in para No. 3 of the original compromise dated 13-12- 2001 filed before the Court Smt. Suman Shukla was described as first wife of Sarvesh Kumar Shukla, but in the subsequent compromise dated 13- 4-2002 she was described as his second wife. It has been stated in para 4 of the subsequent compromise that she had received Rs. 3,70,000/- from Sarvesh Kumar Shukla on 13-4-2002, but how this amount was paid, whether in cash or in the form of cheque or bank draft, has no where been specified. The proceedings of maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P. C. are quasi criminal and quasi civil proceedings, so the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3, C. P. C. , which provide for satisfaction of a decree before the Court shall apply to the present case also, and it was necessary for the applicant to present the subsequent compromise before the Court and get it verified and payment of Rs. 3,70,000/- should have also been made before the Court and in that case sanctity could be attached to the subsequent compromise.
(3.) WHEN this subsequent so called compromise has not been produced and verified before the Court in the above manner, it cannot be pleaded as a defence in the execution proceedings for recovery of the maintenance amount, in view of earlier compromise verified before the Court as already ordered and the only remedy available to the applicant is to file a separate suit on the basis of this so called subsequent compromise. It was further submitted by the applicant's Counsel that the applicant should be permitted to prove the aforesaid subsequent compromise and the learned trial Court erred by not giving permission to him to do so. I do not find any force in this contention. This subsequent compromise, which was not verified before the Court was totally irrelevant in execution proceedings and so the learned Presiding Officer committed no legal error by passing an order to this effect that it could not be considered in execution proceedings and the applicant could not plead this subsequent compromise in execution proceedings and the only remedy available to him is to file separate proceedings on the basis of that subsequent so called compromise.;