( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the decree-holder. The decree-holder is the wife of the first respondent. She has challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated 30-9-1996 passed in E. P. No. 148 of 1992 in O. S. No. 12 of 1968 by which her execution petition was dismissed on the ground that her decree has become nullity and non-executable. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent as husband and wife is admitted. It is also admitted that the suit filed by the wife in O. S. No. 12 of 1968 has been decreed on a compromise and according to the compromise the judgment-debtor shall take the decree-holder to his house and maintain her and if for any reason the decree-holder could not live with the judgment-debtor, the decree-holder by serving a registered notice to the judgment-debtor can claim maintenance under the decree. It is no doubt true that the wife lived with the husband after the decree in terms of the compromise but subsequently when the differences arose between them she decided to live separately. As per that compromise decree she is entitled to maintenance. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Court below erred in dismissing the E. P. filed by the wife only on the ground that she has cohabited after the decree and hence the decree has become non-executable. He submitted that the Court below relied upon a judgment which is no more good law in view of the latest judgment of this Court in J. Adinarayana vs. J. Appalanarsamma and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhupinder Singh vs. Daljit Kaur. Thus, he submitted that the petitioner is entitled to succeed and there should be a direction to the executing Court to execute the decree laid by her. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the rulings which are being relied upon by Counsel for the petitioner are the rulings under the Code of Criminal Procedure and they do not apply to a decree obtained under Section 18 and Section 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Under the provisions of the Hindu adoptions and Maintenance Act if a decree has been obtained by his wife and if there is subsequent cohabitation, the decree becomes inexecutable since the cause for maintenance ceases to exist and therefore the impugned order is quite proper and does not call for interference by this Court under revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of C. P. C. and hence the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 2 ) FROM the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for both side sit is clear that it is an admitted fact on both sides that there was a decree in favour of the wife in O. S. No. 12 of 1968 and it was a decree for maintenance. It is also an admitted fact that the said decree was passed on a compromise entered between the parties on the following terms. (A) The Judgment-debtor shall take the Decree-holder to his house and maintain her leading a happy family life. (B) The Decree-holder shall also live with the Judgment-debtor and lead a family life. (C) (If) for any reason they could not live together and Decree-holder decides to live separately, the Decree-holder shall serve a registered notice on judgment-debtor about her intention and the Judgment- debtor shall pay maintenance at 7 bags of paddy per year irrespective of the question whose fault is, for separate living; (D) In case of default of the payment of maintenance the Judgment-debtor agreed to pay the maktha together with interest at 12% p. a. (E) That the A schedule property shall stand as a charge for maintenance. So far as the nature of the decree that has been passed is concerned, it is executable and it makes no difference in view of the amendment to C. P. C. in the year 1976. The said decree has become final. As per one of the terms of the decree a charge is created on the property. It is an admitted fact that after the decree dt. 22-3-19