Crl. Misc. No. M-36994 of 2010 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-36994 of 2010 Date of Decision: January 4, 2011 Tarsem Singh .................................................................. Petitioner Versus Gurmeet Kaur and another .......................................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Rajinder Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RITU BAHRI, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 2.12.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, and the impugned judgment dated 10.11.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mansa, vide which the criminal revision of the petitioner has been dismissed. Challenge is to the order dated 20.10.2010 vide which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, has issued conditional warrant of arrest of the petitioner. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner got married with respondent No.1 as per rituals of Sikh ceremonies. Respondent No.1 Crl. Misc. No. M-36994 of 2010 [ 2 ] cohabited with the petitioner at village Ralla. One son namely Angrej Singh-respondent No.2 was born out of the wedlock. Due to difficulties in relationship, the petitioner stop maintaining his wife and son. Gurmeet Kaur-respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son Angrej Singh. On notice, the petitioner appeared. He admitted the factum of marriage and birth of his son Angrej Singh. It was pleaded that there was a compromise between the parties before the Panchayat and a sum of `78,460/- along with all dowry articles had been returned to the wife-respondent No.1. This was the full and final settlement and he was not bound to pay any maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. The trial Court after going through the compromise (Ex. RC) has come to the conclusion that there was a compromise to pay `78,460/- along with two acres of land to be transferred in the name of Angrej Singh (son). This compromise has not been implemented as the land was never transferred in the name of Angrej Singh. Even if the wife-respondent No.1 has received `78,460/-, as per the compromise, it is not permanent alimony. As per the version of the wife, `2 lacs had been paid in the marriage and a sum of `78,460/- was returned as per the compromise. Therefore, rejecting the plea of compromise and after going through the entire evidence, maintenance at the rate of `3,000/- per month to the wife and `2,000/- per month to the son has been awarded. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court which vide order dated 10.11.2010 has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the entire record. Crl. Misc. No. M-36994 of 2010 [ 3 ] Mr. Rajinder Singla, counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that as per the compromise (P1) between the parties the amount of `78,460/- has been paid in cash. It was a condition of compromise that Tarsem Singh-petitioner will transfer two acres of land in the name of his son Angrej Singh, if the custody of the son is given to him. If Gurmeet Kaur does not handover her son to Tarsem Singh, he will not transfer the land in the name of Angrej Singh. Mr. Singla has argued that this compromise has been totally ignored by both the Courts below. The condition that he would transfer two acres of land was only when the son's custody was given to him by the wife. As per Annexure P2, all the dowry articles along with `78,460/- has been given as per the compromise. There is a categorical finding of fact in the judgment of the trial Court and Appellate Court that the compromise has not been complied with by the petitioner. The amount of `78,460/- cannot, therefore, be accepted to be a full and final payment for permanent alimony of the mother and son. The judgment of the Appellate Court as well as the trial Court do not call for any interference. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 4.1.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE