RPFC FILED UIS 19(4) OF’ FAMILY COURT
AGAINSI’ THE ORDER D1′. 23.2.08 1>AssEi;> [__.;zs;
C..I\r§i’SC;.N{). 307195 cm THE FELE <31? THE:AV.A.lFf}':z§§i–1;:§:F3
{ZQURT3 MYSORE, DISMISSING THE PE'r:'rz;;-ms: ;?:L%%;£: ~
L113 :25 OF Cr.P.C.
THIS P¥§II’§’I’£CIN COMING Q;:s:’;»§%0§;A’mi>rs»€;.s3fS;§>’;~I “1*§i%3 ge.
my, THE mum’ MAQE THE;:TV;G§§)Lmwviz~ac} ; . ‘
0 R V
Heard Iearnecl c§unse_i§%:f viii féspecii
ef the revisicgi #3f the Famiig
“”” _A ;di;;<;<':Vt43ci against the arder
passed b§f the' ix: rejectizzg the petiticm
fiiezig 21/ 5 of seeidng maixztanance uf
}.?£I' inoggll by the wife and chiidren of the
L"':i€:§§§}021L'£<5§173VI;. » V V
"I};e3rneci caunsal for the pcztitjoners
K ,,s1.1'E.:-xgitfiad that ma: fzriai court was met jusfified in
— §:i–is :1§issmg the petition filed for maintenance, and
” W:i1ere£j; becausti: a sattiement had taken piace b&twe<~:I1
{ha parties mriier, tlgiis not a gaund ta reject the
of
maintenance petition and therefore the impugned
order needs to bf: intcrferad with and the petitiem filed
by the peh'1;i<:::'1erS'has to be allowed having
the scope cf section 125 sf the Cr.P.(3.
4. Leaxneé counsel a1sf;”}j3iaC<Bti.4 r$]i:$a:r1'{_;r.=:V 3:;
two decisiens in this regard which repoitefl £124. {Wig}? *
20:12 KAR 44:24 and I L(V2i;:=ji:;:%::;3 :;) m«;f:_5.:3% £9
Csntsnd that not wi€3iss§an§?%£iig’.c§;m£3i90iI1iS?%, the
p1’3titiCfI”1EI”‘S can still Ea; gain; of
mai3f1te:1a:1ce§..v” {_ Z’* V ‘ V
5. Vlearned cmxnsei
” ” t;h;§’Vv} e:spo:1d@nt submitted
that ‘fifimittfid the Compromise
exzteji’-ed _i§1t:(i §¢R¥€€fi’ tfiem as per Ex.R: and the 131
also sigaeé the said dozxument
K fiver: admits this and apart from this,
after tha”p%§ifies marriage got brake dawn on account
mg =*:5a;aq um:-ac: by the husbarxd, both 0:’ them
“tf1&:”éafi€r got marritzd and hava been ieading life: and
” “apart fmm that, the W petitioner Went to Dubai fer
$1
In
work and she worked £1136 far about eight moxigfihs
and only after coming back fm1:{1 Eubai,
petitioner thought cf filing thc p§ese;z_fi _’ 1 ‘
seeking n1aiI1’r.ez1ar1oe. Ullfifil’ ‘J-;h€:s{ : ‘czifauifisparxcggé; f
the ma: ceurt was justifiedgizfg dism:s.s:ing :h;a%;§¢tit:¢;r$%V%
filed by ‘aha petitioners {ha
amve Submissifin’ a1s;<')H Vp&aced
reiizamze far 1113; by the 18'
Pfititioner "
---------- sides anti on a peruséti sf court, it is clear that
there waé;L2′,1.%Vc11t:5*s:i3i2§:”séL3:t1eInent betweelz the parties
‘_ -:.aj$ p.r=::f E;:§:;E21_____v_§f1″¢ic11 has been acknowledged by
..I3″v._p£’ti£iECI}§3T herein, Rs.2,05,000/=~ was paid by
and in addition, a’ house was aiso
givan ..af1::1 pravision was 335:) made fer taldng care (2?
‘»€1f1é”:s;eIfare of two children and all thesa facts have
‘ tiaen taken meta of by the trial court at paragraphs 14
% and 15 ems order.
if