As already discussed, nothing has been argued regarding quantum of maintenance by the petitioner. He only argued on the basis of compromise. The petitioner cited judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kale & others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1976 AIR 807, Poonam Khanna vs. Dr.V.P.Sharma & anr., in criminal appeal No.1625 of 2009 decided on 17.03.2011, Manu Khanna through mother vs. V.P.Sharma & Anr., Criminal appeal No.1991 of 2008 decided on 05.12.2008, judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Dr.V.P.Sharma vs. State & Anr., decided on 23.01.2009, judgment passed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Sunitha vs. State of Kerala, Crl.R.P. No.461 of 2010 decided on 10.12.2010, judgment passed in Bhupinder Kumar vs. Smt.Versha Rani, decided on 06.10.2004, equivalent citation (2005) 140 PLR 199, judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Adil & Ors. vs. State & Anr., Crl.M.C. 4159 of 2009, decided on 20.09.2010, judgment passed by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Smt.Mousumi Banerjeet vs. Sri Bidyut Kumar Banerjee, F.A. No.07 of 2007 decided on 11.09.2009 and judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zenit Mataplast P. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., decided on 11.09.2009. I have gone through all the cited judgments and the same having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case.

After the compromise, no benefit has been taken by respondent No.2 nor there is anything to show that terms and conditions of the compromise have been complied with by the parties. Furthermore, even if it is taken that compromise has been effected between the parties, even then the interim maintenance has been granted to the minor daughters. Nothing has been shown by the petitioner, as to how he is not liable to pay maintenance to the minor daughters.