- (1.) This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing the order dated 22.9.05 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Rampur (Annexure-24 to the affidavit filed with the application) and also the orders dated 27.4.02 and 15.9.03 passed by the trial court in case No. 454/02, Smt. Seema Verma v. Mukesh Verma and Ors. dated 7.2.04 and 15.6.04 passed in criminal revision No. 316/03 and order dated 15.6.04 passed in criminal misc. application No. 2/04.
(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this application are as under: An application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was filed by Smt. Seema Verma against her husband Mukesh Kumar Verma on 18.3.02. In this application a compromise was filed by the parties on 23.4.02. By this compromise it was agreed upon between the parties that the husband would not demand any dowry in future and would keep the applicant Smt. Seema Verma with him as his wife. If he fails to keep her as his wife then the wife would be entitled to a maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. from the date of the petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. i.e. 18.3.02. On the basis of this compromise the trial court decided the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. vide order dated 27.4.02. Later on an application under Section 125(3), Cr.P.C. was moved by the wife, Smt. Seema Verma alleging thereby that the husband did not comply with the conditions of the compromise, he neither kept her with him nor paid any maintenance. A prayer was made by her that she be paid maintenance allowance from 18.3.02 at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. as per compromise decree. This amount was Rs. 65,000/-.
(3.) The husband also blamed the wife for not complying with the terms and conditions of the compromise and he moved an application under Section 126(2), Cr.P.C. on 27.3.03 for setting aside the order dated 27.4.02 passed by the court below on the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. It was alleged by the husband that his wife never came to him inspite of the several request made by him and therefore, it was necessary to set aside the order dated 27.4.02 and to decide the case on merits. This application of the husband was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 15.9.03. In the opinion of the court order dated 27.4.02 was not an exparte order and therefore, the application under Section 126(2), Cr.P.C. moved by the husband was not maintainable. The husband challenged the orders dated 27.4.02 and 15.9.03 by a revision which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 316/03, Mukesh Kumar Verma v. Smt. Seema Verma. This revision was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Rampur vide order dated 7.2.04. The revision was dismissed and both the orders dated 27.4.02 and 15.9.03 were maintained. Against the order dated 7.2.04 an application for setting it aside was moved which was rejected by the same Sessions Judge on 15.6.04.;