MANU/HP/0777/2022

True Court CopyTM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No. 223 of 2021

Decided On: 20.06.2022

Appellants: Nagender Pal Sharma
Vs.
Respondent: Vidya Sharma

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sandeep Sharma

ORDER

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. By way of instant criminal revision petition filed under S. 397 CrPC, challenge has been laid to order dated 10.3.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Revision No. 14/2017 (Annexure P-6), whereby criminal revision petition having been filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of as compromised, whereby the petitioner herein agreed to pay Rs. 10.00 Lakh to the respondent as permanent alimony and respondent also agreed to file a divorce petition in the competent Court of law within a period of three months, the petitioner herein agreed to pay Rs. 5.00 Lakh on the date of filing of divorce petition and remaining Rs. 5.00 Lakh at the time of passing of final order. Most importantly, petitioner stated before learned Court below that in case he fails to pay the aforesaid amount to the respondent, ex parte order dated 24.12.2017, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mandi, regarding monthly maintenance allowance shall come to force.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the respondent filed a petition under S. 125 CrPC, (Annexure P-3) in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh praying therein for maintenance. In the aforesaid petition, respondent claimed that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 24.1.1978 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Village and Post Office Rajgarh, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, She alleged that the petitioner after having contracted second marriage with one Pushp Lata ousted her from the matrimonial house and is not providing any maintenance to the respondent, as such, she was compelled to do a job to maintain herself and her minor children. She alleged that she has turned old and suffering from arthritis and is unable to walk as such, has resigned from her job in April, 2016 and since then she has no source of income to maintain herself. Respondent claimed that the petitioner is a retired employee of BBMB and getting Rs. 20,000/- from pension and apart from this, he is having sufficient landed property, from which his monthly income is more than Rs. 30,000/-. In the aforesaid proceedings, respondent claimed monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. In the aforesaid proceedings, petitioner despite having received notice failed to put in appearance and as such, he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 24.12.2016 (Annexure P-4). Learned trial Court allowed the petition under S. 125 CrPC having been filed by the respondent and directed the petitioner to pay sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of institution of petition i.e. 12.4.2010.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order granting maintenance passed by learned trial Court, petitioner preferred a Cr. Revision under S. 397 CrPC in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, which subsequently came to be disposed of vide order dated 10.3.2021 (Annexure P-6), on the basis of compromise arrived inter se parties. Perusal of order dated 10.3.2021 reveals that the petitioner herein agreed to pay Rs. 10.00 Lakh to the respondent as permanent alimony and also agreed to file a joint petition under S. 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, with the petitioner seeking therein divorce by way of mutual consent. In those proceedings, petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakh to the respondent, on the day of filing of the divorce petition and remaining amount at the time of passing of final order. He also undert........