- (1.) This petition has been filed against the order dated 16.01.2012, passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad allowing maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to petitioner No.2 and declining maintenance to petitioner No.1 on the sole ground that the petitioners were not ready to stay with the respondent, even though he was ready to keep and maintain them.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are not willing to live with the respondent only on account of the mis-treatment he has meted out to them and, therefore, the conclusion of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. He has further argued that the stand of the respondent that he was ready to stay with the petitioners is patently wrong because it was the respondent who had first filed the petition for divorce and withdrew it only because the maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month was awarded therein. He has further argued that the entire approach of the trial Court was vitiated and that the plea that the respondent was job less could also not have been accepted. In the circumstances, he has prayed that maintenance should be awarded to petitioner No.1 and the amount of Rs. 2,000/- awarded to petitioner No.2 should also be suitably enhanced. On 16.12.2014, the following order was passed :- " A sum of Rs. 7700/- has been paid by the respondent to the petitioner No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that if the respondent makes a fixed deposit of Rs.13 lacs in favour of the minor sonpetitioner No.2, she will not seek any maintenance for herself. Money can be given to the petitioner No.2 on his attaining majority and this would be in full and final settlement of all her claims for maintenance/Stree Dhan/dowry etc. and she would not be averse to the conviction of the respondent being set aside and even to grant a divorce by mutual consent. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks a short adjournment to respond. Adjourned to 23.12.2014."
(3.) Today, the respondent, who is present in person, states that it would not be possible for him to deposit a sum of Rs. 13 lacs but he would be able to deposit Rs. 7 lacs and that too within one year and till then he would not be able to pay any maintenance to the petitioners. Counsel for the respondent is also not in a position to deny the factual assertion regarding the filing of the divorce petition by the respondent.;