Palasa Venkanna @ Venkataiah v. The State of A.P

This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash proceedings in M.C. No.42 of 2008 on the file of Family Court, Nalgonda, filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

The relevant facts of the case are as follows : The second respondent married the petitioner herein i.e. the respondent in the Maintenance Case and after the marriage they begot the third respondent during their marital life and subsequently the wife filed Divorce Petition before the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, against the petitioner which was referred to Lok Adalat, Nalgonda, before which a compromise was arrived at subject to paying a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the wife and also giving Ac.2-00 of land to the son and accordingly compromise decree was passed before the Lok Adalat. Subsequently, the wife filed the Maintenance Case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- each and it was partly allowed on contest directing the husband to pay Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.500/- to the son respectively on or before 15th of every month for reasons stated therein. Hence aggrieved by the same the present Quash Petition has been initiated.

It is the contention of learned counsel for the husband that when once the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat subject to the conditions referred, the question of reopening of the matter does not arise at all, under any circumstances, and therefore the corresponding orders passed are misconceived.

On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the wife and son that the maintenance paid to both of them is inadequate and the land given to the son is valueless and it does not yield any amount and the same question can be considered even at a later stage and appropriately the Maintenance Case was filed and disposed of and there is no reason to interfere with the same.

Therefore, the point to be decided is, whether sufficient grounds are there to quash the proceedings?

Emphatically, long ago the matter was decided before the Lok Adalat at Nalgonda, subject to the terms referred above and nearly after a period of 9 years subsequent to the filing of the Divorce Petition the maintenance case was filed and there is no basis to say that in between similar disputes were raised by the petitioners. The circumstances of the case amply prove that the wife accepted the terms and conditions of the compromise and received the benefits consequently on behalf of herself and their son, who was admittedly minor at that time which precluded him from entering into any contract or any such compromise. When such settlement had taken place, it is to be inferred that she did so having agreed to the terms and conditions mentioned therein and the same will prevail unless there is a basis to hold that fraud was played in doing so. Therefore, the Maintenance case is misconceived so far as the wife is concerned and it is liable to be quashed. The second respondent cannot blow hot and cold at the same time for her benefit.

Further, so far as the third respondent i.e. son is concerned because he was a minor at the time of settlement and the same is not binding upon him, he is at liberty to establish the claim made on his behalf in the Maintenance Case taking into consideration the allotment of the land to him also.