Whether parties can rely on previous order of court after compromise?

The Court below rightly held that when the
parties to the dispute reached a settlement and the terms of
said settlement were complied with, there was no sense in
reverting back to the directions of the Hon’ble Court. The
order passed by learned Judge, Family Court on 30.06.2008
is based on simple logic that once the parties entered into
compromise and the terms of compromise were fulfilled,
then no party is entitled to say that such an order was passed
by the Hon’ble High Court prior to the parties’ entering into
a settlement. There is no illegality in the impugned order

dated 30.06.2008.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 200 of 2008

Smt. Zaibunnisa Vs Mustaq Ahmad

Citation; 2013 CRLJ (NOC) 668 (UTR)
Dated;15-7-2013


Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)
Smt. Zaibunnisa Moved an application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance allowance
from her husband Mushtaq Ahmad, pleading, among other
things, that she was a legally wedded wife of Mushtaq
Ahmad and two daughters were begotten by her out of her
wedlock with him. She was unable to maintain herself and
her husband was not maintaining her and her daughters. It
was also alleged that her husband harassed her for bringing
dowry. Mushtaq Ahmad filed the written statement,
admitting that he was the husband of Zaibunnisa. Mushtaq
Ahmad pleaded that he has divorced Zaibunnisa. When he
went to U.A.E., one Saleem came into the life of

Zaibunnisa, who was having extra marital-relations with
Saleem. He said that his monthly income was Rs. 2000/-.
He was a tailor and was ready to pay maintenance
allowance to his son Aftab. He pleaded that Zaibunnisa was
not entitled to maintenance allowance.
2.
After considering the evidence on record,
learned Judge, Family Court, Nainital, vide judgment and
order dated 18.01.2000, allowed the application of
Zaibunnisa under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Mustaq Ahmad was
directed to pay Rs. 500/- per month to Zaibunnisa as
maintenance allowance. Mustaq Ahmad was also directed
to pay Rs. 500/- to Aftab, till he attains the age of majority.
3.
Aggrieved against the said order, Mustaq
Ahmad preferred Criminal Revision, which was decided by
this Court, vide judgment and order dated 05.12.2006. The
matter was remitted to the court below with certain
observations.
4.
When the dispute was referred back to the
Judge, Family Court, Nainital with certain directions, the
parties entered into compromise and filed paper no. 56-Ka
signed by them, dully identified by their learned counsels. It
was agreed between the parties that the arrears of Rs.
43,000/- will be paid by Mustaq Ahmad to Smt. Zaibunnisa
within one year in the monthly installment of Rs. 3500/-.
3
The said compromise was verified by Learned Judge,
Family Court, on the self same day i.e. 21.04.2007.
5.
On 30.06.2008 Zaibunnisa moved an application
for directing Mustaq Ahmad to pay her Rs. 7500/-, to which
Mustaq Ahmad objected saying that the entire arrears have
been paid. Learned Counsel for Zaibunnisa pleaded before
the Family Court that she was further entitled to Rs. 7500/-
as per the directions of Hon’ble High Court. The Judge,
Family Court did not accede to such request, holding that
the entire arrears were paid by Mustaq Ahmad to
Zaibunnisa as per the terms of settlement entered into
between the parties on 21.04.2007. Learned Counsel for
Zaibunnisa admitted before the Judge, Family Court that
she has been paid Rs. 4300/- as per compromise dated
21.04.2007, but she was further entitled to Rs. 7500/-, as
per the directions of the Hon’ble Court.
6.
The Court below rightly held that when the
parties to the dispute reached a settlement and the terms of
said settlement were complied with, there was no sense in
reverting back to the directions of the Hon’ble Court. The
order passed by learned Judge, Family Court on 30.06.2008
is based on simple logic that once the parties entered into
compromise and the terms of compromise were fulfilled,
then no party is entitled to say that such an order was passed
by the Hon’ble High Court prior to the parties’ entering into
a settlement. There is no illegality in the impugned order
4
dated 30.06.2008. There is yet another aspect of the matter.
This Court, on 05.12.2006 directed the husband to pay the
amount of maintenance alongwith arrears till the disposal of
the pending matter before the Judge, Family Court, and not
beyond that.
7.
Criminal Revision therefore, lacks merit and
is, accordingly, dismissed.
(U.C.Dhyani,J.)
Dt. July 15, 2013

Print Page