JUDGMENT : 

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL , J.

1. In a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by minor Harjot Singh through his mother and natural guardian, learned District Judge, Family Court, Ambala, vide order dated 21.05.2014, awarded Rs.5000/- per month to the child from the date of filing the petition, besides litigation expenses of Rs.5500/-. The minor child and the respondent father Prabhjot Singh have both filed separate revision petitions challenging the order which shall be determined by a single order.

2. For convenience, clarity and better appreciation, the parties shall be referred to as ‘minor child’ and ‘father’.

3. In the petition, the minor child pleaded that his father had been living in United Kingdom w.e.f 17.09.2004. He never cared for him and his other children and thus neglected and refused to maintain him. The father had sufficient land in village Lukhi, Tehsil Thanesar and was earning Rs.3,00,000/- per annum on batai. Besides he was earning more than Rs.3,00,000/- per month in United Kingdom, where he also owned immovable property. His total income was Rs.5,00,000/- per month. Petitioner being minor was unable to earn. Maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month besides litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/- were claimed.

4. The father opposed the petition raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability. It was claimed that the mother of the child namely Gurmeet Kaur, had already received Rs.16,00,000/- as lumpsum maintenance from him on 03.08.2010 in Civil Suit titled Mewa Singh Versus Gurmeet Kaur through Bank draft No.932428 dated 21.05.2010. It was mutually settled that the amount was paid in lumpsum to the minor child and his mother. The written compromise was made part of the judgment. There was concealment of facts as the payment received in lumpsum was not disclosed. The marriage between the mother of the child and father had already been dissolved. She herself the matrimonial home. The child and the mother were possessed of Rs.16,00,000/- whereas the father was not earning any income and was jobless in U.K. Denying all other averments, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. The child examined his mother as PW-1, Dalip Singh as PW-2, whereafter, he closed his evidence.

6. Respondent examined his father as RW-1.

7. Learned District Judge, Family Court, awarded maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month to the child, discarding the compromise Ex.R-1 on the premise that Mewa Singh, who was one of the executant, of the compromise himself violated the terms and conditions thereof. Since, the father and his father (Mewa Singh) never intended to abide by the terms and conditions Ex.R1, it could not treated as legal agreement and claim of the minor child could not be defeated. Observing that the father was possessed of sufficient resources and had good income, maintenance of Rs.5000/- was assessed.

8. Learned counsel for the minor child submits that though learned Family Court assessed income of the father @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month, only Rs.5000/- per month was awarded. The child who was 10 years old was school going and required substantial amount for his maintenance, upbringing and better education. Grandfather of the child was also a big landlord, owner of 38 acres in village Lukhi and considering the social standing, the means, the properties and income of the father, who was living in United Kingdom, the maintenance awarded deserves to be enhanced.

9. On behalf of the father, Mr. Nilesh Kumar Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate, submitted that in an earlier suit, mother of child received Rs.16,00,000/- by way of demand draft on account of future maintenance for herself as well as the minor child. The mutual compromise became a part of the Civil Court decree. Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable, in view of the lumpsum amount received. Thus, the order of learned District Judge, Family Court, Ambala, deserves to be set aside and the petition be dismissed.

10. The father has opposed t