JUDGMENT :

B.N. Karia, J.

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 1-State and learned advocate Mr. Shailesh C. Sharma waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents No. 2, 3, 4 and 5.

2. By way of present application, the applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 26.02.2019 and 06.06.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 2983 of 2018 and 1054 of 2019.

3. Brief facts of the present case are as under:

3.1 That, the present applicant is the husband of the respondent no. 2 and the father of the minor respondents No. 3, 4 and 5. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the respondent no. 2 as per Muslim ritual at Nadiad on 5th June 2005. That, the respondent no. 2 is an obstinate skittish nature and was not knowing household work. That, the respondent no. 2 wife left the house of the applicant in the year 2016 and had filed application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance before the learned family Court No. 3, Ahmadabad and the said application came to be numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 3160 of 2016 and the learned family court was pleased to grant maintenance at Rs. 3500/- to the respondent no. 2 wife and Rs. 1500/- each minor respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 vide order dated 13.08.2019. Thereafter, the applicant and respondent no. 2 have executed divorce deed on 05.01.2017 with mutual consent. On 10.08.2018, the respondent no. 2 filed recovery application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 2873 of 2018 and learned family Court was pleased to pass the order on 26.02.2019 and sentenced 30 days simple imprisonment as against one month maintenance. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 filed another recovery application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 1054 of 2019 on 01.04.2019 and learned Family Court was pleased to pass an order of convicting the applicant for 30 days simple imprisonment as against one month maintenance. Thus, these both the orders are under challenged in this revision application.

4. As very small issue is involved in this revision application, on a joint request being made by learned advocates for the respective parties to decide and dispose of this revision application finally, this matter is taken up for final hearing.

5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

6. It was submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that the impugned orders passed by the learned Family Court are contrary to law and settled position. It was further submitted that however divorce deed was executed by both the parties and dispute was settled amicably, respondent no. 2 has waived her right of maintenance as per the divorce deed. It was further submitted that in the divorce deed that Rs. 4 lacs was agreed to be paid by the applicant and amount of Rs. 1500/- was to be paid to the minor children after executing divorce deed by the respondent no. 2 and waived her right of claiming maintenance, she cannot be permitted to file any application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That however, the deed was produced on record before the family Court, same was not considered, as the respondent no. 2 was not entitled to claim any maintenance or to file any application for maintenance from the present applicant. It was further submitted that the applicant is selling vegetable and fruits, and therefore, he is not able to pay huge amount of maintenance as ordered by the family Court. As no opportunity was given for making cross examination of the applicant, and therefore, also order passed by the family Court is erroneous and illegal. That, allegations made by the respondent no. 2 against the present applicant were false, fabricated, concocted and baseless. In fact, respondent no. 2 deserted the husband-applicant and has escaped from her social and obligatory duty to be performed by her during the marriage life. It was further submitted