MOTI RAM Vs. MONIKA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, this court proposes to dispose of above captioned three petitions i.e. CRM-M-16418 of 2014 and CRM-M-16420 of 2014 both titled as "Moti Ram vs. Monika and another" and CRM-M-22314-2014 titled as "Monika and another vs. Moti Ram" as they arise out of a common order dated 31.03.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula..

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CRM-M-16418 of 2014 and the parties would be taken in this order, as they are mentioned in CRM-M-16418 of 2014 (hereinafter Moti Ram referred to as 'the petitioner'). The petitioner has preferred the present petition for setting aside the order dated 06.11.2012 passed by CJM, Panchkula in Criminal Case No.32 of 2004 titled as Smt. Monika and others vs. Moti Ram, as well as order dated 31.03.2014 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Panchkula in CRR No.131 of 2013 titled as Smt. Monika and another vs. Moti Ram to the extent that the maintenance awarded to the minor childrespondent No.2 has been upheld and enhanced from Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- per month. Whereas respondent no 1-Monika (hereinafter respondent No.1- Monika referred to as 'respondent No.1') has challenged the same order seeking enhancement of maintenance.

(3.) In brief, the facts are that a marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and respondent No.1 on 09.02.2001, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of this wedlock, a female child respondent No.2- Mimana was born on 10.07.2013. On account of matrimonial differences, respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home on 02.03.2003 and went to reside in her parental home, where she gave birth to the minor child. A petition was preferred by respondent No.1 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to herself as well as her minor child, along with an application for interim maintenance. Interim maintenance was allowed @ Rs.3000/- per month to respondent No.1 and @ Rs.1000/- per month to respondent No.2-child from the date of the application. During the pendency of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 29.07.2005, in which the parties decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. It was further agreed that the petitioner was to pay a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- in lieu of permanent and future alimony of all types as full and final settlement and respondent No.1 herein agreed not to take anything from the petitioner and also agreed that she would not file any petition for her maintenance in the future. It was further agreed that minor daughter, respondent No.2, would reside with respondent No.1 and she would not claim any maintenance on behalf of the said child and would be responsible for her upbringing. In view of the compromise arrived at, a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act was filed and the married was dissolved by mutual consent through decree dated 03.08.2006 and paid a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as agreed between the parties. However, respondent No.1 failed to withdraw the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. During the pendency of proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. respondent No.1 moved an application on 21.11.2006 to have the petition withdrawn on her behalf. Both the parties are re-married. By the judgment dated 06.11.2012, the CJM Panchkula, allowed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and granted maintenance @ Rs.2000/- per month to respondent No.1 and @ Rs.4000/- per month to respondent No.2-child. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before ASJ, Panchkula whereas, respondents filed a revision petition for enhancement of maintenance awarded, without disclosing the fact that respondent No.1 had re-married on 02.05.2008. By a common order dated 31.03.2014, the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, partly allowed both the revision petitions of both the parties. In view of the fact that respondent No.1 remarried on 02.05.2008 and that by an order dated 21.11.2016, the petition of respondent No.1 was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn, the claim of respondent No.1 was rejected. However, maintenance awarded to respondent No.2-child was enhanced from Rs.4000/- per month to Rs.5000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition. Aggrieved against the impugned order partly allowing both the revisions as well as the order dated 06.11.2012 passed by CJM, Panchkula, the petitioner has preferred two petitions bearing CRM-M-16418 of 2014 and CRM-M-16420 of 2014. Whereas, respondents have preferred a petition bearing CRM-M-22314 of 2014 against the common order dated 31.03.2014 passed in revision, seeking enhancement of maintenance to respondent No.2-child from Rs.5000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition as well as for enhancement of maintenance awarded to respondent No.1 till the date she get re-remarried.