THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5683 OF 2008 Date: 24th March, 2011 Between: Sathi Tata Reddy …..Petitioner And Sathi Aruna and others. …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5683 OF 2008 ORDER: 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. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that earlier the petitioner filed O.P.No.329 of 2004 against the 1st 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. 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 1st respondent and the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was not paid to her and also to the 2nd respondent and therefore, the maintenance case should be allowed. 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 said decree is in force, both the parties are bound by it subject to the question of minority of the 2nd 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 2nd respondent was a minor, the terms of the compromise are not binding upon her and the maintenance proceedings so far as the 2nd 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. In the result, the petition is allowed so far the claim against the 1st respondent is concerned and the petition is dismissed so far as the claim against the 2nd respondent is concerned subject to the observations made above. _____________________________________ JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 24th March, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5683 OF 2008 DATE: 24th March, 2011 TJMR