Judgment Summary: Hari Pal Verma, J. (Oral)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to set aside an order dated 05.01.2019. The 05.01.2019 order had allowed the respondents' application for recalling an earlier order dated 06.05.2017 and thereby restored the main petition filed by the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Parties appeared in person and were separately addressed by the court; no settlement between the parties was reached.

The order dated 06.05.2017 had been passed by the Family Court on the basis of a compromise between the parties. Under that compromise the petitioner was to deposit Rs. 25,000 per month directly into his wife's bank account on the 10th of every month for the maintenance of respondents No. 2 and 3, and the petitioner and respondent No. 1 (wife) agreed to file a petition for divorce by mutual consent. The compromise, however, did not materialize. Consequently the Family Court, Faridabad, on 05.01.2019 set aside the compromise-based order dated 06.05.2017 and restored the respondents' petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to its original number.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the order dated 05.01.2019, which allowed the respondents' application for recalling the order dated 06.05.2017 and restored the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., should be set aside by this Court?

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's reasoning proceeds from the factual finding that the order of 06.05.2017 had been based on a mutual compromise between the parties. The terms of that compromise—as recorded in the order—required the petitioner to make monthly maintenance payments of Rs. 25,000 into the wife's bank account and contemplated that the parties would file for divorce by mutual consent.

Because the compromise did not materialize (i.e., the agreed course of action was not completed), the Family Court exercised its power to set aside the compromise-based order by its 05.01.2019 order and to restore the Section 125 petition. The High Court reviewed that sequence and concluded that there was no illegality in the Family Court's decision to set aside the earlier order when the underlying compromise failed to mature.

On that basis the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly dismissed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Additionally, the court directed that the Family Court should proceed to pass a fresh order on the restored Section 125 petition, including consideration of interim maintenance. The Family Court was instructed to take into account any maintenance payments the petitioner may have made during the interregnum period.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED.

Holding (core ruling): The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the Family Court's order dated 05.01.2019 is dismissed; the High Court found no illegality in the Family Court's decision to set aside the compromise-based order dated 06.05.2017 and to restore the Section 125 petition.

Direct consequences and directions:

• The Family Court is directed to pass a fresh order on the petition filed by the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C., including any order on interim maintenance.
• If the petitioner paid any maintenance during the interregnum period (between the setting aside and the fresh proceedings), the Family Court must take such payments into consideration when deciding on relief.

No broader or novel legal principle or precedent is articulated in this opinion; the decision resolves the specific procedural petition by affirming the Family Court's action when a recorded compromise failed to be implemented.