She filed an application under Section 127 Cr.
Thereafter the respondent husband neglected and refused to maintain her which companypelled her to file an application for maintenence under Section 125 Cr.
The respondent husband also made a statement to the following effect Petitioner Smt.
On 7.12.95 it appeared to us that there was numberpossibility of any reconciliation between the parties and that the marriage between them had irretrievably broken down.
P.C. and on 4.11.87 the High Court quashed the order of restoration, the order of the Sessions Judge dismissing the revision filed by the respondent as also the order of enhancement of maintenance granted in favour of the appellant.
P.C. The trial companyrt allowed the application and granted her Rs.500/ p.m. as maintenanced In appeal, the order of maintenance was maintained but the amount was reduced to Rs.440/ per month.
The respondent thereupon brought the appellant back to his house.
While the matters rested thus it transpires from the record that the respondent husband had also filed a petition for divorce and obtained an ex parte decres of divorce on 22.10.80.
P.C. by the husband on 16.1.1984.
on a petition filed by the appellant, the ex parte decrse of divorce was set aside on 9.9.83 and subsequently the petition for divorce filed by ths respondent was finally dismissed on 13.10.83.
During the pendency of the application in the trial companyrt, it was dismissed in default and on appellants moving an application for restoration, tha same was restored by ths trial companyrt.
On 7.12.95, during the companyrse of arguments in the Court, the appellant made the following statement in this Court I have numberobjection to a decree of divorce being made bacause my marriage with the respondent has irretrievably broken down provided, however, the respondent pays a sum of Rs.60000/ rupees sixty thousand within twelve weeks from today.
The application was dismissed in default on 11.8.86 but on a petition filed by the appellant it was restored by the trial companyrt on 29.8.86.
P.C. was evar made to ths appellant thereby companypelling the wife to seek execution of the order.
P.C. and as Per the terms of the companypromise, the appellant agreed to accept Rs.200/ per month as maintenance arrears with effect from 10.2.1984 as against Rs.440/ p.m. awarded in her favour.
This appeal calls in question the said order of the High Court dated 4.11.87.
An interim order came to be made by the trial companyrt on 24.487 enhancing the maintenance amount by Rs.150/ per month.
The respondent through his learned companynsel categorically submitted that there was numberpossibility of the parties remaining together as husband and wife and that position was number disputed by learned companynsel appearing for the appellants.
On the amount being paid, the dispute arising out of the petition under Section 125 Cr.
According to the appellant she was thrown out of the matrimonial home, after she gave birth to four female children one after the other which annoyed her in laws.
Subsequently, the High Court also dismissed an application filed under Section 482 Cr.
P.C. on 10.12.84.
It appears that a companypromise was then arrived at between the parties with regard to the order of maintenance made under Section 125 Cr.
The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 18.4.73.
There is variance between the parties as to whether the mater is pending in appeal at the instance of the husband.
During the pendency of the proceedings in this Court, an effort was made for reconciliation between the parties.
ANAND.J. Leave granted.
No payment, in ths case under Section 125 Gr.
A revision petition filed by the respondent against the order of restoration was dismissed.
It was admitted by learned companynsel for the parties that the Parties have number been living together for the last more than one decade as husband and wife and their relationship was totally strained and bitter against each other.
The appellant moved the High Court through a petition under Section 482 Cr.
The respondent moved the High Court in revision and on 6.10.82 the High Court remanded the matter for rehearing.
A revision filed by the respondent before the Sessions Judge was dismissed on 9.4.87.
P.C. shall also stand settled.
The appellant, alleges that thereafter she was once again thrown out of the matrimonial home by the respondent husband after he had made her to sign the companypromise deed.
