Partly allowed

Sathi Tata Reddy, v. Sathi Aruna

Telangana HC24 Mar 2011CRLP/5683/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed maintenance proceedings against the first respondent based on a valid divorce compromise decree but allowed the proceedings against the second respondent who was a minor, subject to determining maintenance based on relevant factors.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed regarding claim against 1st respondent; dismissed regarding claim against 2nd respondent.

Sathi Tata Reddy, Vs Sathi Aruna — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5683 OF 2008

¶3

Date: 24^th March, 2011

¶4

Between: Sathi Tata Reddy …..Petitioner And Sathi Aruna and others.

¶5

…..Respondents

¶6

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5683 OF 2008

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in M.C.No.6 of 2008 on the fie of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 seeking for maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month for each of them. According to the parties, it is pending.

¶11

It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that earlier the petitioner filed O.P.No.329 of 2004 against the 1^st respondent on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act and subsequently, there was a compromise between the parties whereby and whereunder it was agreed to grant divorce subject to paying Rs.1,00,000/- towards full and final settlement to the respondents 1 and 2 and he paid on the day when the compromise decree was passed, i.e., on 23.8.2007, subject to the terms of compromise granting the relief of divorce as prayed for. Therefore, the terms of the compromise are binding upon both the parties, which would preclude the respondents to file a maintenance case and therefore, the proceedings should be quashed.

¶12

It is the contention of learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 that the compromise petition was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation obtaining the signatures of the 1^st respondent and the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was not paid to her and also to the 2^nd respondent and therefore, the maintenance case should be allowed.

¶13

It is mainly to be examined as to whether the proceedings in the maintenance case are to be quashed or not subject to the circumstances enumerated above. What is significant here is that admittedly the said compromise was effected and the said compromise decree was passed by the Family Court, Visakhapatnam on 23.8.2007. Therefore, as long as the

¶14

said decree is in force, both the parties are bound by it subject to the question of minority of the 2^nd respondent. At this stage or until the decree was set aside by a competent forum, the questions raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents cannot be considered. Further, when the 2^nd respondent was a minor, the terms of the compromise are not binding upon her and the maintenance proceedings so far as the 2^nd respondent is concerned shall be allowed to proceed with whereas in the maintenance case, the question of payment of maintenance to her can be decided by taking into consideration of all the relevant factors.

¶15

In the result, the petition is allowed so far the claim against the 1^st respondent is concerned and the petition is dismissed so far as the claim against the 2^nd respondent is concerned subject to the observations made above.

¶16

_____________________________________ JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 24^th March, 2011 Tjmr

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5683 OF 2008

¶19

DATE: 24^th March, 2011

¶20

TJMR

Sathi Tata Reddy, v. Sathi Aruna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathi Tata Reddy, v. Sathi Aruna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Smt. S. Chandravva

The Union of India Vs D. Veera Babu

M/s. Ad-Age Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s. Srinivasa Towers Association

Varanasi Satyanarayana, Vs The State of A.P.

G.Padmaja Rani Vs Sri P.Gopala Krishna Reddy

The Union of India rep., by the General manager, Vs Manchikalapudi Sundara Rao