In Brief
This appeal challenges a Family Court's decision to revive a maintenance petition after the husband failed to honour a settlement. The key issue was whether Section 362 CrPC (prohibiting courts from altering final orders) prevented the court from setting aside the settlement and restoring the maintenance case. The Supreme Court held that Section 362's embargo does not apply to maintenance orders under Section 125 CrPC, because Sections 125 and 127 expressly allow courts to alter or revive such orders as circumstances change. Interpreting Section 125 as a social welfare statute aimed at supporting destitute wives and children, the Court upheld the Family Court's revival of the maintenance application when the husband defaulted on settlement payments, restoring the wife to her former position and advancing constitutional social justice.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.