- (1.) THE Registry has pointed out a defect that the Judge, Family Court, Ajmer could not be arrayed as a party-respondent. THE said defect is yet to be removed.
(2.) HOWEVER, even on merits, the case is on a weak wicket. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.03.2004, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ajmer, whereby the learned Judge has granted an interim maintenance of Rs.500/- per month in favour of respondent No.1, Smt. Chanda Banoo. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-wife, Smt. Chanda Banoo, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner-husband before the Family Court wherein she claimed that she got married with the petitioner in Masooda, District Ajmer in 1992 according to Muslim customs and rites. The father of the respondent-wife gave sufficient dowry according to his capacity. But ever since her marriage, her in-laws and husband have tortured her for dowry demands. She further claimed that due to the torture committed on her, she is residing with her parents since 1993.Thus, she prayed for maintenance. The petitioner-husband filed reply to the said application and denied the contents thereof. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 04.03.2004, the learned Judge, Family Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs.500/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife by way of a compromise which has been arrived between the parties on the very same day. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Kapil Mathur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the petitioner has already filed an application for restitution of conjugal right before the Civil Judge, (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Aasind, which is still pending. Therefore, he is more than willing to take the respondent-wife back. Since, he is willing to take her back, the question of providing maintenance to her does not even arise. Secondly, the respondent-wife has left the matrimonial home of her own volition and without any rhyme and reason. Therefore, she is dis-entitled from claiming any maintenance from the petitioner-husband. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The contentions raised by the petitioner-husband are unacceptable. For, merely because the petitioner-husband is willing to keep the respondent-wife with him, it would not absolve him of his liability to pay maintenance. Moreover, the respondent-wife has given ample reasons for staying away from the petitioner-husband. Lastly, the order dated 04.03.2004 is based on a compromise that was reached between the parties and a copy of the compromise is available in the file. Once a consent decree has been passed, the same cannot be appealed.
(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed.;