JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. D K Bordoloi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Singha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The matter basically pertains to the maintenance granted by the learned trial Court to the respondent on her prayer. 3. So far as the matters on record is concerned, the respondent/wife filed a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C before the Court of learned CJM, Morigaon in the year 2007 praying for maintenance for herself and her minor son which was registered as MR Case No. 248/07 wherein the learned trial Court by its order dated 14.11.2008 directed the present petitioner/husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- to his wife and the child. While the maintenance amount was continuously paid by the present petitioner. 4. Subsequently on the basis of the petition filed by respondent/wife for enhancement of the maintenance amount, the learned trial Court enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- by its order dated 28.03.2016 in MR Case No. 195/2015. On 05.05.2016, the respondent/wife filed a petition before the learned trial Court with a prayer to deduct the maintenance allowance from the pensions of the present petitioner. The learned trial Court while taking the petition, also taking note of the communication received from the office of the respondent, PAO (OR) Armd. Corps, Ahemdnagar that the maintenance allowances of the wife and children cannot, no more to be deducted from the account of the husband/petitioner as he has retired as on 31.05.2016 from the Army Service and the Rule does not permit to deduct any maintenance amount after retirement, the learned trial Court passed an ex-parte order that as the petitioner has no source of income of her own, so the Commanding Officer, 56 APO, AD Regiment was directed to give his share of the retirement benefit, if any, to the petitioner and her minor children/son, petitioner being the first wife of the opposite party and is entitled to get all the pensionary benefits. The said order goes to show that the Court was not perusing the maintenance matter after passing such direction to the authority. 5. Thereafter, on 02.06.2016 after a few months to the aforesaid order, the petitioner herein paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lacs) to the respondent/wife which was also acknowledged the same. The said order goes to show that the Court was not perusing the maintenance matter after passing such direction to the authority. 5. Thereafter, on 02.06.2016 after a few months to the aforesaid order, the petitioner herein paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lacs) to the respondent/wife which was also acknowledged the same. According to the petitioner/husband the said amount was given as one time settlement and the respondent/wife also acknowledged the receipt of the amount but however, again on 28.09.2016, the respondent/wife appeared before the Court with a prayer to deduct the maintenance amount from the pensions of her husband. Accordingly the notice was issued to the husband/petitioner for maintenance. On 13.10.2016 the present petitioner appeared before the learned trial Court and filed a petition praying for time, in his first appearance and there was no mention about settlement of the case for onetime payment, rather he sought time for paying maintenance due to his retirement and non receipt of retirement benefits. Subsequently, on 15.11.2016, the petitioner/husband filed a petition contending the aforesaid facts that they have already arrived at onetime settlement and the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was given towards the onetime settlement of maintenance but the said proposition put forward by the husband, was not accepted by the respondent/wife, contending that the said amount was granted to her by the office from the pensionary benefits as per her entitlement. 6. Taking into account all above, the learned trial Court by its order dated 08.05.2017, refusing the settlement between the parties as has been contended by the husband/petitioner, held that the husband/petitioner is still under liability to pay the maintenance along with arrear. Accordingly it was directed that Pension Disbursing Authority to deduct monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000/- from the pensions of 2nd party/petitioner herein and deposit the amount to the bank account of the wife. Further, the direction was given to deduct Rs. 4,000/- per month with effect from 28.03.2016 till April 2017 towards the arrear maintenance amount of Rs. 89,000/-. 7. 7,000/- from the pensions of 2nd party/petitioner herein and deposit the amount to the bank account of the wife. Further, the direction was given to deduct Rs. 4,000/- per month with effect from 28.03.2016 till April 2017 towards the arrear maintenance amount of Rs. 89,000/-. 7. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present petition has been preferred by petitioner/husband that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the matter in proper perspective and has crept into serious illegality, by directing for deduction of maintenance from the pensionary benefits in a proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C and has contended that such a finding of the Court as well as the direction for deduction of the maintenance is per se illegal and liable to be interfered into. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/wife has however strenuously contended that such a contention of the petitioner about the settlement of the maintenance matter cannot be accepted inasmuch as there is no such written document to show about such an amount that has been paid of (Rs. 5,00,000/-) that has been paid towards the one time settlement. The petitioner as a first wife is entitled to retirement benefits. Further, it has been contended that although the petitioner appeared before the Court after receipt of the subsequent notice but he never stated about such onetime settlement on his first appearance but subsequently the matter has been put forward to avoid the maintenance. Accordingly, it has been contended that there is no irregularity and illegality in the aforesaid order. 9. Pursuant to the submission, I have also considered the document that has been annexed and the different orders passed by the learned Trial Court. Although, the petitioner has not specifically challenged the order dated 05.05.2016 but the impugned order dated 08.05.2017 has a reference to the aforesaid order. On careful appraisal of all the orders so passed by the learned Trial Court and the status of petitioner, it reflects that there is no dispute that the petitioner was an Army Personnel and was retired on 31.05.2016 and their authority has also informed the Court that there is no provision for deduction of pay after such retirement. On the basis of such findings, the Court by its order dated 05.05.2016 has passed an order for granting retirement benefit to the respondent/wife. On the basis of such findings, the Court by its order dated 05.05.2016 has passed an order for granting retirement benefit to the respondent/wife. In this context, the learned Trial Court has gone beyond jurisdiction, as the provision u/s 125 Cr.P.C is designed for providing maintenance towards the estrange wife and the children and there is no scope to give direction to share the retirement benefits. Such an order is apparently devoid of law. 10. On the next, it is also admitted position that the petitioner has already given a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to his wife/respondent and petitioner contends that the said amount was given from the pensionary benefits and it has nothing to do with the maintenance amount. As has been indicated, above the adjudication of pensionary amount is a different subject, which has to be decided by the authority concerned as per law as to how much amount will be disbursed to the wife. In this case, in fact, said amount has been deposited by the petitioner himself not by the authority. Even though, there is no such written document between the parties to show that the said amount was given as onetime settlement but there is also scope to hold that unless some sort of settlement, was there, the petitioner/husband will not pay such a huge amount to his wife. Further, without any valid document, now, the respondent/wife also cannot legally claim that the said amount has been given to her from pensionary benefits and in that case, the matter is now to be adjudicated as to what should be the proper maintenance amount, if the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is also counted towards the petitioner. After the retirement, salary of a person is almost reduced to half and in that aspect maintenance amount is also to be considered by the Court in a given circumstances. 11. The last direction of the Court towards the Pension Authority to deduct the amount of Rs. 7,000/- as well as Rs. 4,000/- towards the arrear maintenance is also appears to be not proper as the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the earlier payment of Rs. 5 lacs by her husband. Some assessment has to be made by both the parties and the respondent/wife cannot remain in content after receiving such huge amount from his husband. 7,000/- as well as Rs. 4,000/- towards the arrear maintenance is also appears to be not proper as the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the earlier payment of Rs. 5 lacs by her husband. Some assessment has to be made by both the parties and the respondent/wife cannot remain in content after receiving such huge amount from his husband. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the entire aspect of the matter while passing the impugned order which is rendered the decision, a gross irregularity. 12. Taking into account all above, the aforesaid order dated 08.05.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside with a direction to the learned Trial Court to decide the matter afresh having regard to all the facts and circumstances as discussed above within its jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on or before 24.01.2019 and Court will decide the matter afresh regarding the maintenance as per law.