A compromise does not have any binding effect in the matter of payment of maintenance, and execution proceedings are maintainable in spite of prior compromise. The provisions of Section 125 and Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be cancelled or altered, and the magistrate may have to exercise jurisdiction from time to time to advance justice and protect the rights of women for whose benefit the provisions have been engrafted.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred against the order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suri, Birbhum, in Misc. Execution No. 34 of 2022.

2. The petitioner’s case is that the opposite party/wife filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code vide M. Case 119 of 1995 against her husband/petitioner before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Suri, Birbhum, with a prayer for maintenance in which Learned Court was pleased to allow maintenance to the extent of Rs. 400/- for herself and Rs. 400/- for her daughter per month and the petitioner was paying that amount on regular basis.

3. It is further stated by the petitioner that thereafter wife/opposite party by suppressing the Learned Court order is M. Case 119 of 1995, filed a new Case before D.L.S.A. Suri, Birbhum being C.C. Petition No. 38/2018 where in it was decided that husband/petitioner will pay Rs. 5500/- in favor of wife in her bank Account by the 7th day of each month, from April, 2018 and accordingly the petitioner was paying that amount on regular basis.

4. Subsequently, the wife/opposite Party filed another Case before D.L.S.A. Suri, Birbhum being C.C. Petition No 43/2019 where in, it was decided that husband/petitioner will pay Rs. 7500/- in favor of wife in her bank Account by 7th day of each month, from March, 2019 and accordingly the petitioner was paying that amount on regular basis.

5. Thereafter after prolonged discussion between both parties, they agreed for full and final settlement. Accordingly the permanent alimony for the opposite party/wife was fixed Rs. 9,00000/- (Rs. Nine Lakh only) dated on 19.09.2020 which was paid in two phases, First Phase Rs. 3,29000/- by cash deposit in post office Savings Bank Account of opposite party dated on 19.09.2020 and second phase Rs. 5,71000/- (Rs. five lakh seventy one thousand only) through cheque in favor of Sarbamangala Mukherjee.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner received a court’s summon in Misc. Execution Case No. 34 of 2022 (present case) pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate wherein the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 4800/- per month as maintenance for the period from February 2021 to January 2022 and the next date was fixed on 11.03.2022.

7. The petitioner filed an application praying for rejection/dismissal of the said Execution Case on the ground that an amicable settlement had been arrived at between the parties and Rs. 9 lakhs had already been paid to the opposite party in the year 2020. The Learned Magistrate on perusal of the materials on record and on hearing both sides was pleased to allow the prayer of the opposite party/wife directing the petitioner to make payment, hence the revision praying for setting aside/quashing of the said order.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party perused the materials on record. The opposite party/wife herein has filed her affidavit-in-opposition stating therein that she is a cancer patient since 2016.

9. It is further stated that in spite of specific direction by the court the petitioner never paid maintenance regularly.

10. It is stated that, her signature on the receipt accepting Rs. 9 lakh was forced.

11. It is stated that as per the instruction of the petitioner/husband, the amount has been deposited in monthly scheme and she gets only Rs. 4995 per month from the said deposit.

12. It is further stated that petitioner/husband has got Rs. 45,00,000/- as benefits being superannuated from the post of A.S.I. and G.R.P. Government of West Bengal.

13. Petitioner/husband also gets monthly pension of Rs. 40,000/-.

14. Petitioner/husband also maintains a concubine at the home/residence of the petitioner. Subsequently the petitioner married the said lady Smt. Samapati Mukherjee.

15. It is further stated that in spite of having sufficient means, the opposite party is not providing maintenance to the petitioner and their child w