VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 29.4.2004 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Samarla rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking rejection of the petition on the ground that the respondent herein has obtained divorce from the petitioner-husband vide judgment dated 25.11.2000 and, therefore, in view of the divorce between the parties and compensation paid to the respondent- wife, she was not entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner. The petitioner refers to the statement of Gurmail Singh made in the court at the time of grant of divorce, which reads as under :- "Deposed that I have heard the defendant's statement. I shall pay within one month a sum of 2.00 lakhs to the defendant as consideration for past, present and future maintenance as well as Stridhan and dowry. Out of the said amount Rs. 75,000/- shall be deposited by the defendant in an F.D. drawn in the name of Amrit Singh, which he shall be able to withdraw when he attains the age of majority." In response to the said statement the respondent herein made the following statement before the matrimonial court, which reads as under :- "It is being deposed that I have received draft bearing No. 31/449 printed No. 0443998 dated 17.11.2000 in favour of Amrit Singh which shall be invested in an FDR a copy of the same shall be produced on 2.12.2000 and the money shall not be withdrawn till the time Amrit Singh attains age of majority. I shall withdraw all my cases. I have received Rs. 1,25,000/- in cash, from Girmail Singh, party No. 1 through the Lok Adalat."
(2.) THE learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Samrala has rejected the application by relying upon the judgments of this Court reported in Attar Singh v. Smt. Meena and another, 1996(2) RCR(Crl.) 579 (P&H) and Harvinder Kaur v. Paramjit Singh, 1998(3) RCR(Crl.) 9 (P&H) holding therein that if wife gives up her claim to maintenance under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, she will still be entitled to maintenance under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act as well as under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court in the said case came to the conclusion that either by way of agreement or by consent the right to maintenance cannot be defeated. However, in the present case, the respondent had not given up her right to claim maintenance, but by way of settlement she had accepted a sum of Rs. two lakhs in consideration of past, present and future maintenance as well also been received by her as would be clear from her statement made before the Lok Adalat in a matrimonial dispute. In view of this, the petition for maintenance was not maintainable and the learned Court below has failed to take note of acceptance of maintenance in matrimonial case. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the petition filed by the petitioner for rejection of the petitioner was thus not maintainable, hence the same is rejected. Petition allowed.;