Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Bench: JUSTICE Narain Singh “Azad”
RADHESHYAM Vs. SMT. PHOOLWATI On 7 February 2002
If there is Compromise between Parties the Recovery Proceedings Deserve to be Dropped.
1. Arguments heard.
By order dated 8th December, 1995, Shri B.C. Mallaiya, J.M.F.C. Bhopal, granted maintenance to respondent in M.Cr.C. No. 135/1995, which was payable at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month since 8.12.1995.
2. In the course of execution of aforesaid order, this petitioner filed an application on 19.12.2000, resisting the proceeding on the ground that under an agreement with the respondent, the agricultural land situated at village Nalkheda is transferred in the name of the respondent, and hence the recovery proceeding deserves to be dropped. After considering the sale deed so also the affidavit of mother of the respondent which was filed on behalf of the petitioner, the learned J.M.F.C. did not accept the fact of compromise between the petitioner and the respondent through her mother and hence rejected the application moved on behalf of the petitioner. Then, thereafter, this petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the aforesaid order dated 17th March, 2001, passed by JMFC in Criminal Revision No. 235/2001. The learned IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhopal, who disposed of aforesaid revision petition on 12th October, 2001, reappreciated all the facts and circumstances and then affirmed the order dated 17th March, 2001, passed by learned JMFC.
3. It is under these circumstances, that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction for holding the enquiry into the rival contentions of the parties and then for a decision afresh.
4. A perusal of order dated 17th March, 2001, passed by learned J.M.F.C. reveals that the respondent denied the fact of compromise in reply to petitioner’s application dated 19th December, 2001. In the Court of J.M.F.C. the petitioner is not found to have made any prayer for an opportunity to adduce evidence and was satisfied by filing a copy of the sale deed along with the affidavit of the respondent, therefore, now he cannot claim exercise of inherent powers for a direction to hold enquiry in respect of rival contentions of the parties, as the petitioner has not made this prayer before the Revisional Court also.
5. This petition is thus found to be without merit, which is accordingly disallowed and rejected at the stage of motion itself.