RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) VIDE this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.07.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby, the order dated 15.06.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, granting the interim maintenance to the respondents has been upheld.
(2.) ON the basis of the statements made before this Court, on 29.11.2011, the following order was passed: - "Counsel says that the petitioner is ready to settle with the respondent -wife and is prepared to keep her. Notice of motion for 17.02.2012 to see in case the issue can be amicably resolved. In the meantime, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - as costs for the respondents to appear in this Court." As per office record, the amount of Rs. 10,000/ - has not been deposited by counsel for the petitioner to enable the respondents to appear in the Court.
(3.) FROM the aforesaid fact itself, it is clear that the petitioner does not want to settle the matter and has in fact made a wrong statement before this Court on 29.11.2011. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.;