LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-264

RAMDEO PANDEY Vs. SAVITRI PANDEY

Decided On May 20, 2013
RAMDEO PANDEY Appellant
V/S
SAVITRI PANDEY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner assails the judgment dated 19th July 2010 whereby the application of the Respondent under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount was allowed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Courts, Rohini, Delhi.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner primarily assails this order on the ground that the same was in violation of the settlement arrived at between the parties in the Mediation Cell, Tis Hazari on 18th April, 2006 and subsequently endorsed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 157 of 2005. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that a consent order cannot be altered or reviewed. There was no material before the learned Trial Court to come to the conclusion that the Petitioner had suppressed material facts. In any case the learned Trial Court could not have revised the maintenance for the period even prior to the date of filing the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that besides the maintenance amount agreed upon between the parties, the Petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- at the time of anticipatory bail in lieu of streedhan items in favour of the Respondent on which she was earning the interest and also has a house to live in.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contends that the Petitioner concealed facts and stated that he was getting a sum of Rs.2,328/- per month as pension only, in the reply to the application for maintenance before the learned Trial Court. In view thereof the learned Mediator came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 800/- per month would be a fair amount as maintenance to the Respondent as agreed upon between the parties. Later the Respondent came to know that the Petitioner was in fact getting a sum of Rs. 5,183/- in August, 2005 and a sum of Rs.7,326/- from the month of March, 2008. He had additional income from agriculture and in view of these facts the learned Trial Court committed no error in enhancing the maintenance.