KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral:

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 19.10.2005 passed by Sessions Court in Revision Petition No. 04/2005, whereby the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

.2. The brief facts of case relevant for deciding the present petition are as under:-

.Petitioner Smt. Santosh got wedded as per Hindu Rights and Ceremonies with respondent on 13.5.1994 in Delhi. Due to constant dowry demands and on nonfulfillment of the demands, the petitioner had to leave her matrimonial home. No child was born out of the wedlock.

.3. A complaint was lodged on 6.11.2000 by the petitioner on account of the acts and conducts of the respondent and his family members before the concerned CAW Cell. A formal compromise has been arrived between the parties wherein it was decided that petitioner will seek divorce by way of mutual consent and respondent would pay an amount of Rs. 1 lac towards all materials claims of petitioner inclusive of Stridhan. That the said compromise arrived between the parties on 12.2.2001 and out of the agreed amount of Rs. 1 lakh an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by the respondent on the same date i.e. 12.2.2001 before the Crime Against Women Cell. Based on the compromise both the parties approached the concerned Court to seek divorce by mutual consent and first motion was allowed on 1.5.2001. The said compromise was arrived between the parties during the pendency of the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the said petition was dismissed in default on 18.12.2002 on account of the non-appearance of the petitioner and her counsel. To seek restoration of the said petition the petitioner moved necessary application on 23.5.2003 but the said application of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 13th October, 2004.

4. Aggrieved by the said order a criminal revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Ld. Session Judge. The Hon’ble Sessions Court vide order dated 19.10.2005 dismissed the revision petition of petitioner upholding the order dated 13.10.2004 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as correct. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner to assail the above said orders.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the reasons explained by the petitioner in the revision petition the learned Metropolitan Magistrate should have restored the application of the petitioner filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., but instead of doing so the learned M.M. gave much weightage to the compromise deed dated 17.1.2001 entered into between the parties before the Crime Against Women Cell (CAW).

.6. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the said compromise entered into before the CAW Cell had no binding effect and in any case the learned M.M. ought to have tried the application of the petitioner filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on its merits. Counsel further submits that even the revisional court fell in grave error by not appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioner and without considering the bona fides of the petitioner, the learned Sessions Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner did not fulfill the terms of the compromise on account of certain circumstances created by the respondent and no wrong was committed on the part of the petitioner in resiling from the said compromise. Counsel also submits that the right of the petitioner to seek maintenance was an independent right and the same could not have been defeated by the learned courts below simply because of the fact that the petitioner did not honour the terms of the compromise.

.7. The present petition is strongly opposed by Mr. S.S. Panwar, counsel for the respondent who states that this court should not exercise the inherent powers as envisaged under Section 482 Cr