MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. M.D. Gitte waives service for the respondents. At the request of both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner husband is impugning the order passed by the Family Court in ER -137 of 2017 on the application (Exh.12) filed by him whereby he was directed to deposit the arrears of maintenance awarded against him and in favour of the respondents in Criminal Misc. Application No.24 of 2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure within 15 days else directing a warrant to be issued for sending him to jail.

3. The learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submits that in fact the order granting maintenance itself deserves to be quashed and set aside. A compromise entered into between the couple on 05.12.2009, whereby the respondent no.1 had received an amount of Rupees One Lakh in full and final settlement of her claim for maintenance. Besides a customary divorce has taken place in the form of deed of divorce on 22.02.2017 in presence of a Corporator, whereby the respondent no.1 again accepted a sum of Rupees Three Lakhs in lieu of her right to claim maintenance. Accordingly, a Hindu Marriage Petition No.F-37 of 2017 was preferred under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce by mutual consent. She had also filed an affidavit in support thereof. However, she back tracked and proceeded with the execution of the order awarding maintenance to her. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Family Court ignoring all these facts is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned advocate for the respondents submits that the order awarding maintenance in Criminal Misc. Application No. 24 of 2013 has reached finality. No proceeding has been initiated by the petitioner husband seeking to recall it by resorting to Sub-section 5 of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. In the absence of any such supervening event, no fault can be found in the impugned order of the Family Court seeking to put the order to execution to enable the respondents to recover the arrears of the maintenance. The petitioner has also filed a proceeding before the Family Court under Section 127 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which may take its own course. For the time being the fact remains that there is an order of maintenance passed in favour of the respondents which enables them to execute it so long as it is not quashed and set aside.

5. At the out set, it is necessary to observe that the petitioner has come with following two main prayers in the petition:

"C. Issue writ of ceertiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, direction or writ of certiorari like nature and to quash and set-aside the order dated 16/01/2018 passed below Exh.-12D in application No. ER-137/2017 passed by learned Family Court, Latur.

D. Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, direction or writ of certiorari like nature and to quash and set-aside the order dated 22/02/2016 passed by learned J.M.F.C., Latur in Criminal Misc. Application NO. 24/2013."

6. As far as the prayer 'D' is concerned, one cannot comprehend as to how such a prayer could be made in this writ petition when the remedy for challenging the order of maintenance passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been availed of. A remedy to prefer a revision under Section 397 was very well available to the petitioner, but apparently that has never been availed of and the order awarding maintenance has reached finality. If that be so, one need only to discard and reject the prayer 'D' in limine.

7. Even according to the petitioner's own saying an application has been preferred by him under Section 127 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Exhibit-H) which clearly shows that he has availed of