FAYAZ AHMAD MISGAR Vs. FAISAL FAYAZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition enshrines a prayer for quashment of proceedings under section 488 Cr. P.C initiated by the magistrate below culminating into order of 8.11.07 where under petitioner/father was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 800/ - per month each to respondents/sons. Grounds pleaded are that previously also proceedings under sec. 488 Cr.P.C were going on between respondent children against petitioner father before a magisterial court which was compounded by them and petitioner/father paid an amount of Rs. 2,27,000/ - to his wife divorced by them in lieu of maintenance and cost of nuptial properties. Maintenance @ Rs. 700/ - was paid by petitioner/father to respondent/children also for a period of 20 months preceding the compromise, where after in terms of compromise respondents/mother would be liable to maintain them, if they lived with her. During course of submissions learned counsel for petitioner reiterated contents of the petition as aforesaid and also contended that in given circumstances of the case the whole proceeding is vitiated as having been barred under the earlier compromise mentioned above and accordingly the order dated: 8.11.07 does not have any basis to stand upon. In rebuttal the respondents counsel has defended the proceedings.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel and considered the matter. Doubtless the petitioner/father has paid maintenance to respondent/children till date of compromise at a particular rate as decided by "Baradari. For the following period, the question of maintenance would be open, and the stipulation in compromise that children would be responsibility of their mother if they stay with her would not absolve petitioner/father of his obligation to make payment on account of maintenance to children. Needless to say that casting obligations on the children in the compromise particularly as they were minors on the date and continue to be so till date cannot bind them so any contention to contrary would simply be ridiculous.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , I dont find anything wrong with impugned proceedings or the ultimate order that has been passed by the magistrate which appears to be correct. This petition is, therefore, dismissed with a direction to learned magistrate for recovering what ever is due from petitioner on account of maintenance to all the children as long as the order stands in law.