Gagandeep Singh vs Akshit Arora

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J

The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 12.9.2016 (Anneuxre P-9) vide which interim maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month has been allowed

to the child whereas the maintenance was denied to the wife. He also challenges order dated 20.1.2017 (Annexure P-10) vide which the revision

filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

Notice was given to the other side. Both the parties are present. The petitioner is disputing the interim maintenance to the child and his plea is that

the wife had already accepted two amounts i.e. Rs. 3,55,000/- and another sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- and had settled all the issues and maintenance

could not be allowed or the amount paid should have been ordered to be adjusted and both the Courts below have ignored the fact that there was a

full and final settlement and the settlement had been made by the wife in the Courts which records the fact that she had received two separate

amounts.

Counsel appearing for the respondent states that only one amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- was received and not two amounts and only a sum of Rs. 1000/-

per month has been allowed as interim maintenance for the child. The counsel also urges that had two amounts been paid then that fact would have

been referred by the petitioner when the order for payment of interim maintenance was passed on 12.9.2016.

The documents made available by the petitioner show that Nidhi had made a statement before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar regarding

receipt of amount of Rs. 1,77,500/- pursuant to the compromise arrived earlier. Counsel for the petitioner had pointed out that the compromise which

was arrived at is Annexure P-2. There is another compromise Annexure P-6 according to which a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- had been paid. The

respondent admits to have received only Rs. 3,60,000/-. There is an affidavit of the respondent as well. The respondent is disputing the first amount

paid in 2014. It is also stated that the amount which had been received by her did not relate to the maintenance of the child.

Considering the above, I am of the view that since the trial Court is yet to determine whether two separate amounts of Rs. 3,55,000/-and Rs.

3,60,000/- had been paid to respondent, it would be appropriate to direct that the interim maintenance allowed by the Court below will not be paid to

the respondent but would be deposited by the petitioner in the Court and would be subject to the result in the main petition. If ultimately it is found

that the amount had been paid twice then the petitioner would be entitled to withdraw the amount ordered to be deposited vide this order. The

respondent would also have the remedy of recovery in execution if her application is allowed.

The petition is disposed of with the above directions.