A party receiving permanent alimony cannot subsequently claim maintenance for themselves, but minor children are entitled to maintenance regardless of the parent's financial agreements.

JUDGMENT

Manisha Batra, J.

The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.08.2014 passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad in Petition No.169 of 2010 titled as Mrs. Neelam and others v. Rajesh filed under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure whereby maintenance to the tune of Rs.3000/- per month was directed to be paid by the petitioner to respondent No.1 wife whereas the minor respondents No.2 and 3 were directed to be paid a sum of Rs.1000/- per month each.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the respondent No.1 Neelam for herself as well as on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 3 filed the aforementioned petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the present petitioner who is her husband, by pleading that she along with her children had been thrown out of her matrimonial house by the petitioner and was dependent upon her parents and was living with them. While claiming that the petitioner was working as a machine operator with one M/s A.P. Engineers at Faridabad and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and alleging that he had neglected and refused to maintain the present respondents, who were unable to maintain themselves, she prayed for directing him to pay maintenance.

3. The petitioner had resisted the claim of the present respondents by filing reply. The parties had led evidence and after considering the contentions respectively raised by their counsel and appraising the evidence produced on record, the learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad vide order dated 19.08.2014, allowed the petition and directed the present petitioner to pay maintenance to the present respondents to the extent of amount as mentioned above.

4. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order was not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned District Judge had gravely erred in giving direction to him for making payment of maintenance to the present respondents as he had already paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards permanent alimony to the respondent No.1. She had undertaken that in lieu thereof she would not claim any maintenance in future from him for herself or on behalf of the minor respondents. He argued that the respondent No.1 had backed out from the undertaking so given before the Court in proceedings seeking decree of divorce, by withdrawing her consent and no decree of divorce could be passed in favour of the petitioner but nonetheless she was bound by the statement that she had received permanent alimony and would not be entitled to make any claim in future. He argued that evidence to this effect had been produced by the petitioner before the learned Family Court and arguments were also raised on that point. However, the learned Family Court did not consider this fact and hence he urged that the impugned order was not sustainable and was liable to be set aside.

5. It will not be out of place to mention here that though service of notice was duly effected upon the respondents through ordinary process as well as by way of publication in the newspapers but none appeared on their behalf before this Court.

6. I have given due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully perused the material placed on record.

7. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of statement shown to be jointly recorded by the present petitioner and the respondent No.1 on 03.11.2009 in petition bearing No.1353 of 2009 titled as Rajesh and Smt. Neelam filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A perusal of the contents of the same reveals that the petitioner as well as the respondent No.1 had recorded a joint statement to the effect that they had decided to get their marriage dissolved by way of decree of divorce by mutual consent. The respondent No.1 had recorded that she had received all her belongings, dowry articles,