The settlement between parties in a maintenance case does not necessarily settle the claims of the minor child, and the minor child cannot be deprived of the right to claim maintenance.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this revision is made to the order dated 26.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 214 of 2021, Km. Rashmeet Kaur v. Jitendra Pal Singh, by the court of Judge, Family Court I, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. By the impugned order, an application for interim maintenance filed by the respondent no. 2 (“the private respondent” – she is minor daughter of the revisionist) has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month interim maintenance to her.

2. This case has a history. Initially, in the year 2012, an application for maintenance was filed by the mother of the private respondent, for herself and for the private respondent, seeking maintenance from the revisionist. It was registered as Family Suit No. 88 of 2012, Smt Saranjeet Kaur and another v. Jitendra Pal Singh (“the case”). The case was decided on 20.09.2014 and the revisionist was directed to pay total Rs. 8,000/- per month to the private respondent and her mother, as maintenance.

3. It appears that in the meanwhile, the mother of the private respondent, who was wife of the revisionist, filed an FIR against the revisionist and others, in which after investigation, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance taken. Those proceedings were challenged by the revisionist before this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 387 of 2015, Narendra Singh and another vs. State and others (“the petition”). The parties entered into a compromise in the petition on 09.05.2015. They recorded the following settlement:

“Parties are present Ms. Sharanjeet Kaur is present with her father Mr. Baldev Singh, Mr. Jitendra Pal Singh is present with his Ld. Counsel, J.S. Virk. Parties have agreed to settle all their disputes which have arises between them. As per terms of the compromise the parties have agreed in following terms.

(1) The custody of minor child Rashmeet Kaur will maintain with the mother only till the time she attains majority.

(2) Jitendrapal Singh was agreed to give Rs.21,50,000/- (Twenty one Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) as full and final settlement amount towards maintenance alimony to Ms. Sharanjeet Kaur for which she has also agreed. She will not claim anything from Jitendrapal Singh in further towards maintenance alimony and property etc.

(3) Ms. Sharajeet Kaur has agreed to withdraw all cases filed by her against her husband father in law, mother in law and maternal uncle S. Singh. The details of the case are Criminal Case No.163/12, titled as Sharanjeet Kaur vs. Jitendrapal Singh others, u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC. Maintenance case under section 125 Cr.P.C. bearing no.88/12 pending in the family court of Khatima will be withdrawn by her. She has also agreed to withdraw the execution proceedings filed in family court Khatima. She has also agreed to withdraw Domestic Violence Case bearing no. 303/12 pending in the court of JM Khatima.

(4) Jitenderpal Singh has also agreed to withdraw all the cases which he has files against Ms. Sharanjeet Kaur and her family members. He will withdraw his application u/s 340 CrPC pending in family court, Khatima.

(5) In the light of above both the parties with go for quashing of the Misc. application bearing no.384/2015 is pending in the High Court.

(6) Parties have agreed that they will now file mutual divorce (13B HMA) in the Family court Khatima and parties have agreed that the agreed amount of Rs. (21,50,000/-) will be given as her for mutual divorce.

(7) Once mutual divorce is granted by the family court the parties shall withdraw all cases against each other.

(8) Parties have made the terms of the compromise and agreed to abide by the terms of the compromise.

(9) Compromise has been enters into without fear, undue influence coercion, etc.

(10) Parties shall move the court within two months for mutual divorce and thereafter for withdrawal of all cases filed against each other.

Sd/

09.05.2015”

4. In fact, prior to that, the private respondent and her mother had filed