Mohinder Singh vs Balbir Kaur

G.S. Chahal, J.—This order will dispose of two criminal revisions No, 419 of 1991 and 420 of 1991 as they arise out of the same facts. The brief facts are that Balbir Kaur and Kulwinder Kaursrespondents are the daughters of Mohinder Singh. They have brought applications for grant of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.R.C. which were dismissed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 7-9-90 on revision decided by Sh. M.S Luna, Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide his judgment dated April 29, 1991, the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was set aside and the applications were remanded for further enquiry.

Previously both the respondents along with their mother Parkash Kaur had brought a civil suit for-grant of maintenance and that suit was decreed. In appeal they entered into a compromise and in that compromise it was agreed that Parkash Kaur shall be paid Rs 200/- per mensem, as maintenance, while a total sum of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited in the name of Balbir Kaur and Kulwinder Kaur, to be utilised by them at the time of their marriages. Since no written compromise had been recorded and authority of the Counsel to enter into a compromise was also challenged, relying upon the observations of their lordships of Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Chatur Bhuj Goel, , it was held by the learned Sessions Judge that there was no valid compromise and the same could not stand in the way of the respondents to prosecute their applications u/s 125 Cr. P.C.

After hearing the learned Counsel, I am of the view that the approach of the learned Sessions Judge was correct. There had been no legal compromise entered into between the parties in the civil suit and the offer of Mohinder Singh Petitioner to make the deposit in the names of the respondents did not effect the right of the respondents to claim maintenance u/s 125 Cr. P.C. The respondents are thus legally competent to prosecute their applications for maintenance and no interference with the orders of the Sessions Judge is called for. However, since the compromise decree has been frustrated on account of a legal infirmity, it shall be fair that the amounts deposited by the petitioner are not realised by the respondents.

Kumari Arvinder Samra, who appears for the respondents agrees not to withdraw the amount. The amounts shall be utilised for discharging the liability of the petitioner towards maintenance if any which may ultimately be granted to the respondents. With these observations, the petitions stand dismissed.