Fayaz Ahmad Misgar vs Faisal Fayaz and Another

Bashir A. Kirmani, J.—This petition enshrines a prayer for quashment of proceedings u/s 488 Cr. P.C initiated by the magistrate below

culminating into order of 8.11.07 where under petitioner/father was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 800/- per month each to

respondents/sons. Grounds pleaded are that previously also proceedings u/s 488 Cr.P.C were going on between respondent children against

petitioner father before a magisterial court which was compounded by them and petitioner/father paid an amount of Rs. 2,27,000/-to his wife

divorced by them in lieu of maintenance and cost of nuptial properties. Maintenance @ Rs. 700/- was paid by petitioner/father to

respondent/children also for a period of 20 months preceding the compromise, where after in terms of compromise respondents/mother would be

liable to maintain them, if they lived with her. During course of submissions learned Counsel for petitioner reiterated contents of the petition as

aforesaid and also contended that in given circumstances of the case the whole proceeding is vitiated as having been barred under the earlier

compromise mentioned above and accordingly the order dated: 8.11.07 does not have any basis to stand upon. In rebuttal the respondents

counsel has defended the proceedings.

I have heard the learned Counsel and considered the matter. Doubtless the petitioner/father has paid maintenance to respondent/children till date

of compromise at a particular rate as decided by ""Baradari. For the following period, the question of maintenance would be open, and the

stipulation in compromise that children would be responsibility of their mother if they stay with her would not absolve petitioner/father of his

obligation to make payment on account of maintenance to children. Needless to say that casting obligations on the children in the compromise

particularly as they were minors on the date and continue to be so till date cannot bind them so any contention to contrary would simply be

ridiculous.

Accordingly, I don't find anything wrong with impugned proceedings or the ultimate order that has been passed by the magistrate which appears

to be correct. This petition is, therefore, dismissed with a direction to learned magistrate for recovering what ever is due from petitioner on account

of maintenance to all the children as long as the order stands in law.

This petition is accordingly dismissed alongwith the connected Cr. M.P.