SHIV NATH THAKUR Vs. NUTAN THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, trial court vide order of 28th July, 2010 has directed petitioner-husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent and her two children, while permitting respondent herein to earn money by giving tuition's and to reside in the matrimonial household. After passing of the order of 28th July, 2010, the parties had entered into a Mediated Settlement Agreement of 26th November, 2010 at the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre which takes note of the fact that the parties are residing under the same roof with their children. It was agreed between the parties that petitioner would continue to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month with respondent to enable her to meet out the day-to-day household expenditure with the understanding that she would withdraw her present complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The parties fell apart in April, 2012.

(2.) During the course of hearing, petitioner had maintained that it became difficult to live with respondent and so, they fell apart and presently, they are living in their separate rented accommodation whereas, according to respondent, she had not withdrawn her present complaint because petitioner had not abided by the Mediated Settlement Agreement of 26th November, 2010. Respondent maintained that since petitioner is not living with her, therefore, he is liable to pay the arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/-. The Executing Court vide order of 23rd October, 2013 has directed petitioner to deposit the arrears of maintenance of Rs. 59,000/-. The said arrears are till May, 2013. The Revisional Court vide impugned order of 6th December, 2013 has maintained Executing Court's order of 23rd October, 2013.

(3.) At the final hearing of this petition, it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the reasonable amount of maintenance is Rs. 3,000/- per month only, which petitioner is already paying, as respondent is a teacher, who is already earning by giving private tuition's. It was submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is already paying the rental of Rs. 5,000/- per month for the premises in which respondent is residing with her two children and he is also paying the school fee of the two children which comes to Rs. 6,000/- per month. Thus, it was submitted on behalf of petitioner that in view of the Mediated Settlement Agreement of 26th November, 2010, the impugned orders are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed.