JUDGMENT :

1. By preferring this application, applicant has requested to quash and set aside the judgement and order dated 18th January, 2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 104 of 2013 along with Criminal Misc. Application No. 368 of 2014 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara.

2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-State.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that respondent-wife was not interested in running marriage life with the present applicant. On 28.2.2010, their marriage was dissolved and applicant as well as respondent No.2 were agreed with certain conditions shown in the divorce deed. That, divorce deed was binding to both the parties, executed in presence of two witnesses . That, on 9.11.2012, divorce deed was executed by the applicant in favour of respondent No.2 on non judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/- and on the other-hand respondent No.2 also executed divorce deed in favour of applicant on non judicial stamp papers of Rs.100/- wherein, both the parties agreed to give absolute divorce to each other and also agreed with certain conditions. That, on 20th November, 2012, applicant had transferred his own house valued of Rs.30,00,000/- in favour of respondent No.2-wife as well as two daughters. That, inspite of settlement arrived at between the parties, on 27.2.2015, applicant had paid more amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the respondent No.2 by way of the account payee cheque. That, Family Court has committed an error in not considering the evidence on record and house having prize of around Rs.30,00,000/- given to respondent No.2 by way of permanent alimony of maintenance to her and two minor daughters. That, no order of maintenance could have been passed by the Family Court in favour of respondent No.2-wife, as the applicant is now residing in rented premises. Referring cross-examination of respondent-wife it is submitted that wife is residing with her father and house given by the present applicant was not used by her. That, respondent-wife has waived her rights to claim any maintenance from the present applicant, as per the agreement of divorce executed between them. Therefore, she cannot claim any maintenance amount from the applicant u/s. 125 of Cr.P.C. That, trial Court has not considered the said aspect. That, income part of the applicant is also overlooked by the Family Court as he is earning only Rs. 6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month. That, granting maintenance to the respondents at Rs. 3,000/-, each, total Rs.9,000/- is exorbitant which can not complied with by the present applicant. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the applicant to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 18.1.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 104 of 2013 along with Criminal Misc. Application No. 368 of 2014 by learned Judge, Family Court, Vaodadara and allow this application.

4. From the other-side, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 has supported the reasons arrived at by learned Family Court granting maintenance to the respondents-original petitioners as Rs.9,000/- in total to the respondents and two minor daughters from the date of filing of the application. It is submitted that applicant has remarried with another lady and divorce deed was created by force. That, statutory rights given to the respondent- wife cannot be curtailed by the Court or taken away by the applicant on the ground that she would not claim any maintenance from the applicant being her husband. That, transferring a house by the present applicant and executing the registered sale deed in favour of respondent wife cannot absolve the present applicant paying the amount of maintenance to the wife and two minor children. That, respondent- wife has no source of income or she is not earning any amount of income. That, she herself and two minor daughters are depended upon her father. That, they are not in a position to maintain themselve