Bombay High Court
Latabai Raju Tikhule vs Raju Shankar Tikule And Anr on 31 January, 2024
Author: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Bench: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
2024:BHC-AS:4866
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 09/02/2024
rsk 902-WP-267-15.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.267 OF 2015
Latabai Raju Tikhule ...Petitioner
V/s.
Raju Shankar Tikule and Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Rameshwar N. Gite for the Petitioner.
Ms. M. R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent.
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 31st JANUARY, 2024.
P. C.:-
1. On 22 January 2024, the matter was argued by learned counsel
for the petitioner as none had appeared for the respondent. The matter
stood over today to give an opportunity of hearing to respondents. Today,
none appears for respondents. As such this Court has proceeded with the
hearing of the matter.
2. By this petition the exception is taken to the judgment and
order dated 11th November 2014 passed by the Sessions Court in Revision
Application No.11/2013 quashing the order passed by the Magistrate in
Criminal Application No.86/2012.
3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed an
Application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 09/02/2024
rsk 902-WP-267-15.doc
the respondents. Learned Magistrate after considering the evidence on
record had granted a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month as monthly maintenance
vide judgment dated 21st January 2013. Against the order of grant of
maintenance, respondents preferred Revision Application It was contended
that on 8th December 2009 the matter was mutually settled between the
parties and a sum of Rs.85,000/- was agreed as lump sum maintenance to
be paid by the petitioner to the respondent.
4. Sessions Court by order dated 11th November 2014 held that as
the petitioner wife had accepted the lump sum maintenance amount she had
relinquished her future right to have maintenance and as such allowed the
Revision Application .
5. Heard Mr. Rameshwar N. Gite for the petitioner and Ms. M.
R. Tidke, APP for the respondent.
6. Mr. Gite, learned counsel for the petitioner tenders a copy of
settlement which was entered into between the parties. He further submits
that the issue is no longer res integra and has been settled by the decision
of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Ramchandra Laxman Kamble
vs. Shobha Ramchandra Kamble and Anr., 2019 ALL MR (Cri) 426.
7. The only reason why the Revision Application has been
allowed by the Sessions Judge is that there is a Deed of Relinquishment
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 09/02/2024
rsk 902-WP-267-15.doc
executed by the petitioner wife. The decision in the case of Ramchandra
Laxman Kamble vs. Shobha Ramchandra Kamble (supra) has taken a view
considering the past judicial pronouncements that an agreement in which
wife gives up or relinquishes her right to claim maintenance at any time in
future is opposed to public policy and therefore such an agreement even if
voluntarily entered is not enforceable.
8. Considering the proposition of law laid down by the learned
Single Judge of this Court with which I am respectfully bound, the
impugned order is legally unsustainable. Resultantly, the impugned order
dated 11th November 2014 is hereby quashed and set aside and the order of
Judicial Magistrate, First Class dated 21st January 2014 stands revived.
9. Writ Petition stands allowed.
(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.)
