Petitioner challenged a Family Court order directing custody for non-payment of maintenance. The High Court allowed the revision, quashing the order due to a mutual settlement where the respondent accepted a lump sum for future maintenance.
The impugned order dated 30.08.2016 directing recovery and custody was quashed and set aside based on the mutual settlement.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1211 / 2016
Dinesh Khati S/o Ladu Lal Khati, Khati Mohalla, Bacchhkheda, Tehsil Shahpura District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Patodia.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, PP.
Dr. Sachin Acharya.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
16/11/2017
The instant revision is directed against order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhilwara in Recovery Proceeding (Criminal Case) No.554/2015 whereby, the learned Judge, Family Court directed that warrant of recovery for the due maintenance amount be issued against the petitioner and as he failed to do so, the petitioner should be sent to custody for a period of 12 months.
During the pendency of the revision, the parties have settled their disputes. Today Shri Mukesh Patodia has placed on record, copy of the application filed by the spouses before the Family Court, Bhilwara under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. As
(2 of 2)
[CRLR-1211/2016]
per clause 8 of the said application, the respondent Smt. Bunti Kumari has accepted a lump-sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from the petitioner towards her future maintenance and after receiving the same, she has agreed that she would not by any further lay any further of claim maintenance from the petitioner.
In view of the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that allowing the recovery proceeding to be continued against the petitioner is not justified by any stretch of imagination.
Thus, the instant revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhilwara is hereby quashed and set aside.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J.
Tikam/58
1 issue framed by the court
Whether maintenance recovery proceedings can be quashed where parties have mutually settled the dispute via a lump-sum payment under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dinesh Khati S/o Ladu Lal Khati
Smt. Bunti Kumari D/o Mahaveer Prasad Khati
Sandeep Mehta
Dr. Sachin Acharya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
