- (1.) CM No. 1311/2014 The instant application has been filed by the appellant with a prayer that operation of the impugned order dated October 17, 2011 passed in HMA Petition No.141/2011 may be stayed. 2. Vide order dated October 17, 2014 execution of warrant of arrest has been stayed subject to his depositing part payment. 3. Since we are disposing of the appeal today the application is dismissed as having become infructuous. CM No. 12110/2015 1. This application has been filed by the respondent pointing out a noncompliance of the order dated October 17, 2014 and necessary direction to the appellant. 2. Since we are disposing of the appeal today the instant application is also dismissed as having become infructuous. 3. The applicant can seek execution. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 5/2014 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated August 17, 2012 whereby while disposing of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent Smt.Jas Kiran Kaur, wife of the petitioner, the learned Judge-01, South, Family Court, Saket passed the following order:- "11. Admittedly, an agreement had taken place between the parties at Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 18.03.2009 whereby the petitioner had agreed to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month to the respondent and further agreed to bear all education expenses of both the children including school fees, transportation, books and stationery, uniform, tuitions etc. The petitioner has been adhering to the aforesaid terms of the agreement but since April, 2011, has failed to comply the terms and conditions of the aforesaid settlement for the reasons stated in his submissions. 12. Looking into the financial capacity of the petitioner alongwith family business being carried out by him alongwith other family members in Japan, his share in the property in Delhi and the life style as depicted in the pleadings, the petitioner is directed to comply the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement dated 18.03.2009. It would not be out of place to mention here that on the basis of the settlement dated 18.03.2009, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi quashed the FIR registered under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC against the petitioner and his family members on 05.05.2009. After having availed the benefits of the agreement, now the petitioner cannot wriggle out of it. Since the respondent/wife remained gainfully employed with Mitsubishi company w.e.f. August, 2009 to May, 2011, therefore, she will not be entitled to any maintenance till May, 2011. However, both the children shall get Rs. 50,000/- per month towards maintenance from the petitioner from the date of the filing of the present application u/s 24 of H M Act i.e. 22.12.2010. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month towards maintenance of respondent w.e.f. June, 2011. He shall also bear the educational expenses of both the children, as per the terms of the settlement deed dated 18.03.2009. The arrears of monthly maintenance be cleared within four months from today."
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the mediation settlement dated March 18, 2009 provided an interim ad-hoc arrangement in terms of maintenance i.e. Rs. 50,000/- per month for a period of two years which he had complied with. He complied with other conditions also like providing AC car, handing over the istridhan, jewellery etc. Despite that whenever he visited India he was not allowed even to meet his children. Compelled by the circumstances he filed the petition for dissolution of marriage on account of the cruelty committed by his wife.
(3.) In the divorce petition the respondent wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to seek maintenance which was resisted for the following reasons:- (i) Due to severe financial constraints on account of the slowdown of economy it was not possible for him to provide maintenance as well education expenses as contemplated under the settlement dated March 18, 2009. (ii) He had already parted with substantial amount i.e. more than Rs. 15,00,000/- for which no account has been rendered by the respondent. (iii) The appellant had been meeting his liability and responsibilities by encashing his fixed deposits or taking loan against those FDRs and against his life insurance which now stands depleted. (iv) The Family Court did not consider his plea that his wife was employed. (v) His detailed affidavit giving comprehensive account of his personal financial assessment has not been considered by the Family Court to appreciate that his financial condition has changed dramatically after the settlement before the mediation.;