IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.28470 -M of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 25, 2010 JOGINDER SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS POOJA .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate, for respondent. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed in challenge to order dated 4.2.2009 (Annexure P-6), passed the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, and order dated 15.7.2009 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the revision of the petitioner has been partly accepted. Vide order (Annexure P-6), while considering the issue under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month, as interim maintenance to the respondent-wife. The petitioner carried a revision, whereupon the revisional court has reduced the amount to Rs.3,000/- per month, by way of Criminal Misc. No.28470 -M of 2009 2 modification of order passed by the Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance. The provisions of sub- section (4) of Section 125 provide that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for maintenance or interim maintenance or expenses of proceedings, as the case may be, from her husband under this Section, if they are living separately by mutual consent. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that perusal of Annexure P-2 indicates that the petitioner and the respondent are living separately by mutual consent. Learned counsel for the respondent states that it is the petitioner, who violated the terms of the deed (Annexure P-2). Under the deed (Annexure P-2), the respondent was given the house. Not having any regard for his words, the petitioner has not only filed a civil suit in regard to the ownership of the house, but has also filed criminal proceedings. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. Annexure P-2 has been projected as a divorce deed. It, however, remains the admitted position that a court having competent jurisdiction has not been approached for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. In such circumstances, the legal validity of the document is in question. So far as the agreement for living separate and settling the Criminal Misc. No.28470 -M of 2009 3 rights of the respondent by way of giving the house and money are concerned, it has been pointed out that it is the petitioner who violated the terms of the agreement and has sued the respondent before various forums. This aspect of the matter has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that proceedings have been initiated against the respondent. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that one time payment of maintenance was given and accepted. The respondent, under the circumstances, is estopped from claiming regular payment. In this regard, reference has been made to the judgment rendered by this Court in Gurmail Singh v. Ramanjeet Kaur, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 2. Since the agreement deed itself has been questioned, I do not find that the argument is available to the petitioner and is, therefore, rejected. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that it is only an interim arrangement and evidence is required to be led and considered by the court, no ground for interference in this matter is made out. The petition is dismissed. February 25, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?