Jagat Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Chandra Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Dheeraj Singh, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2.

This revision u/s 397, Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 29.1.2001, passed by 1st Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1021 of 1999, Kusum Devi v. Jagat Singh Case No. 1021 of 1999 whereby application u/s 127, Cr. P.C. filed by revisionist was rejected.

In brief the facts of the case are that opposite party No. 2 Smt. Kusum Devi moved an application u/s 125, Cr. P.C. against the revisionist-husband, which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 158 of 1990 and the same was decided by order, dated 27.11.1991, passed by A.C.J.M., Bulandshahr and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 400 per month to the opposite party No. 2 as maintenance allowance. The application u/s 127, Cr. P.C. was filed by the revisionist before the Magistrate on the ground that on 4.2.1999 written compromise was executed between the parties and sum of Rs. 25,000 was paid to Smt. Kusum Devi in full and final payment of the maintenance allowance and therefore maintenance allowance is not payable in future.

The application was objected by opposite party No. 2 Smt. Kusum Devi. It was stated that the alleged compromise is forged and the same has not been proved by evidence. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 29.1.2001 rejected the application u/s 127, Cr. P.C. Hence, this revision.

It was submitted by learned Counsel for the revisionist that revisionist had paid Rs. 25,000 to the opposite party No. 2 as a lump sum payment towards maintenance allowance and agreement to this effect was executed on 4.2.1999 and was attested by the notary and therefore, after 4.2.1999 no maintenance allowance was payable to opposite party No. 2 and learned Magistrate committed illegality in rejecting the application u/s 127, Cr. P.C.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that alleged agreement dated 4.2.1999 is a forged document and has not been proved by legal evidence. It was further submitted that on 4.2.1999, petition for divorce was pending before the civil court and had the parties come to terms regarding payment of maintenance or the divorce, the compromise could have been filed before the Court where petition for divorce was pending.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the impugned order, I find that the revision has no force. The petition for divorce was pending before the civil court. Had the parties come to terms, the compromise could have been filed before the Court where the divorce petition was pending. There was no point in getting the compromise petition attested by notary public and keeping with himself. Moreover the genuineness of compromise cannot be judged in revision as it is a matter of fact and finding of fact recorded by the Magistrate cannot be reconsidered by this Court in revision. It is also apparent from the impugned order that no evidence to prove the alleged agreement was adduced by the husband before the Magistrate.

In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, which does not require any interference by this Court. The revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 6.2.2001 is hereby vacated.