Inderjit Singh, J. - (1.) YUDHISHTER Bhutani -revision petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C. against Shalini Bhutani, Garvit Bhutani and Tanishq Bhutani challenging the judgment dated 6.5.2014 passed by District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon allowing the petition filed by the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance.
(2.) IT is stated in the petition that the petitioner married respondent No. 1 according to Hindu rights and ceremonies at Gurgaon in the year 1998. Out of the wedlock, two sons, namely, Garvit Bhutani and Tanishq Bhutani (respondents No. 2 and 3) were born in the year 1999 and 2002 respectively. As the relations between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 became strained, they started living separately from November 2011. It is stated here that the respondents are staying in the matrimonial home, whereas the petitioner was staying in the same house on another floor along with his brother. However, later on he shifted and is now staying alone. It is stated that respondent No. 1 used to leave the house and started living in Guest Houses in Gurgaon without caring about her children. The petitioner even bought a separate house after taking loan from the bank to live with his wife and children, but respondent No. 1 never wanted to stay with him. The respondents filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance on 19.10.2012. In the said petition, respondent No. 1 stated that the petitioner is the owner of a factory and has more than one house. They further stated that the petitioner is running an industrial unit and has employed over 25 workmen and is earning over Rs. 2 Lacs per month. The petitioner submitted detailed reply dated 14.8.2013 that respondent No. 1 behind the back of the petitioner developed an illicit relationship with one Manish and due to this, their relations became strained. Even FIR for the offences under Section 498 -A, 323, 406 and 506 IPC was got registered by Smt. Meenu wife of Manish. It is also stated that during the pendency of the petition before the Family Court, the matter was sent to Mediation and conciliation Centre, where the petitioner and respondents agreed to settle their dispute and were directed to take divorce by way of mutual consent. The petitioner further agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs along with jewellery of respondent No. 1 lying in the bank locker as permanent alimony. Respondent No. 1 agreed to send the children in the custody of the petitioner. It is also stated that respondent No. 1 is running a beauty parlour and earning quite well. It is also stated in the petition that vide impugned judgment, the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 6,500/ - to each of the respondents, which comes up to be Rs. 19,500/ - per month. This judgment has been passed without application of mind and without considering the material evidence brought on record by the petitioner.
(3.) AT the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that firstly, it is not the petitioner, who threw away the respondents. Rather, the respondents are staying in the matrimonial house and the petitioner is living separately. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the talk of compromise, approximately an amount of Rs. 1.5 Lacs has already been paid to respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that respondent No. 1 is earning sufficient income and the amount granted to the respondents is excessive and respondent No. 1 is not entitled to maintenance. He also contended that the income of the petitioner as per the Income -tax return also comes to average of less than Rs. 25,000/ - per month.;