Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 3060 of 2022
Revisionist :- Akash Kumar Mishra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Azm Sayeed
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Kumar Mishra
Hon’ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Azm Sayeed, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State.
The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 10.06.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1 of 2021 (Smt. Gayatri Kumari Vs. Akash Kumar Mishra), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by which, court below allowed the interim maintenance application moved by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 10,000/- each per month as interim maintenance to opposite party nos. 2 and 3.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist is the husband of opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.3 is his minor son. He next submitted that earlier on the basis of wrong facts, revisionist has been falsely implicated by opposite party no.2 under Section 498A IPC and relevant sections, in which, both the parties have compromised the matter and in pursuance of the compromise, revisionist, the husband and opposite party no.2, the wife started living together and as per the agreement, both the parties i.e. revisionist, the husband and opposite party no.2, the wife were restrained to file any further case against each other but in spite of that opposite party no.2, the wife moved a maintenance application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 24.12.2020 against the revisionist, therefore, she violated the terms of the compromise dated 26.09.2018. He next submitted that even the fact of the compromise has not been mentioned in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. moved by opposite party no.2 and she concealed this fact. He next submitted that revisionist is still ready to perform his matrimonial duty but opposite party no.2 is not ready to live with him. He further submitted that although monthly salary of revisionist is Rs. 90,000/- per month but he is having several obligation including the illness of his mother, therefore, total amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is highly excessive, therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that revisionist is the husband of opposite party no.2 and father of opposite party no.3 and he is having responsibility to maintain opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and even if there is compromise executed between opposite party no.2 and revisionist and if after compromise revisionist failed to comply the terms executed between the parties and started harassing the opposite party no.2 and failed to maintain opposite party nos. 2 and 3 i.e. wife and his minor son and opposite party no.2 had to file an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for her maintenance as well as his minor son maintenance then there is no illegality. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 next submitted that even as per the revisionist himself, he is earning Rs. 90,000/- per month as salary, therefore, from any corner it cannot be said that total amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month as interim maintenance granted to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is highly excessive and revisionist does not want to maintain opposite party nos. 2 and 3, therefore, he challenged the interim maintenance granted by the court below before this Court and there is no illegality in the order dated 10.06.2022, therefore, instant revision is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.
The revisionist is husband of opposite party no.2 and father of opposite party no.3, who is his minor son. Due to matrimonial discord earlier also as per the revisionist, opposite party no.2 filed a case under Section 498A IPC and other relative sections, in which, both the parties have settled their dispute on 26.09.2018 and pursuant to compromise dated 26.09.2018 they have started living together. The revisionist and other accused persons of the case relates to Section 498A IPC, when challenged the FIR of the case before this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6557 of 2018, the FIR of the case relates to Section 498A IPC was quashed by this Court on 06.02.2019 and division Bench of this Court passed the following order:-
“Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.G.A. for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3; Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the First Information Report dated 10.12.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 0790 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P Act, at P.S. Bisarakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Considering that the matter emanated from a matrimonial dispute, vide order dated 19.3.2018, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court for exploring possibility of a settlement between the parties.
Pursuant to the order dated 19.3.2018, the Mediation Centre of this Court has submitted a report dated 26.9.2018 that the mediation was completed and parties arrived at a settlement. The settlement agreement dated 26.9.2018 has also been enclosed, which is, purportedly, signed by the petitioner no. 1 (the husband of the respondent no. 4) and Smt. Gayatri Kumari (respondent no. 4). The relevant terms and conditions of the compromise are contained in paragraphs no. 6 and 7 of the settlement agreement, which are extracted below:
“6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:
a) That the marriage of Sri Akash Mishra (Petitioner no.1-husband) and Smt. Gayatri Kumari (Respondent No. 4-wife) was solemnized on 28.6.2010. Out of aforesaid wedlock the parties have a son namely Anant Kumar (aged about 7 years).
b) That the parties have decided to reunite and live together as husband and wife in perfect harmony forgetting all previous disputes and differences and they undertake to discharge all matrimonial obligations towards each other in respectful manner and undertake not to commit any kind of cruelty against each other in future.
c) That the husband and wife undertake that they shall not take any such action which may hurt either of the party mentally or physically and shall try to satisfy each other by their activities.
d) That the husband undertakes to take care of his wife and son and provide all essential requirements and amenities to them in future. He further undertakes to provide proper education and facilities to the son Annat Kumar.
e) That it has also been agreed between the parties that all the cases filed by them against each other and against their family members shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/authority concerned.
f) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall not violate the terms and conditions of this settlement, otherwise the aggrieved party will be free to take legal recourse.
7.- By signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that the Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 6557 of 2018 and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation.”
In view of the aforesaid settlement between the parties, keeping in mind the law laid laid down by the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and Ors. Vs. State of Harayana (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, where it has been held that owing to a settlement between the parties, particularly, in matrimonial matters, even non-compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of compromise, the writ petition is liable to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed. The F.I.R. dated 10.12.2017 lodged by the respondent no. 4 as Case Crime No. 0790 of 2017, at P.S. Bisarakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar. is hereby quashed. ”
It appears that pursuant to the compromise dated 26.09.2018 and order dated 06.02.2019 both the parties i.e. revisionist and opposite party no.2 started living together but unfortunately again dispute arose between them and after that opposite party no.2 again started living separately along with his minor son and thereafter opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist as revisionist has failed to maintain her and his minor son and during the course of the proceedings pending under Section 125 Cr.P.C., opposite party nos. 2 and 3 claimed interim maintenance, which was allowed by the court below by way of impugned order dated 10.06.2022 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 10,000/- each to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as interim maintenance.
Record of the case shows that after the compromise dated 26.09.2018 although the FIR lodged by opposite party no.2 under Section 498A IPC was quashed by this Court but as again dispute between the husband and wife arose and revisionist failed to maintain her wife and his minor son, therefore, in view of the compromise dated 26.09.2018 it cannot be held that opposite party no.2 cannot file an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance.
Although, opposite party no.2 in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. did not disclose the fact that earlier on 26.09.2018 an agreement was executed between them but on this ground interim maintenance application moved by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 cannot be dismissed. As, revisionist is in job and his monthly income is Rs. 90,000/-, therefore, in my view Rs. 10,000/- each per month i.e. total Rs. 20,000/- as interim maintenance granted to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is not excessive, therefore, present revision filed by the revisionist is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.8.2022