MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. The Petitioner assails the judgment dated 19th July 2010 whereby the application of the Respondent u/s 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount was allowed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Courts, Rohini, Delhi. Learned counsel for the Petitioner primarily assails this order on the ground that the same was in violation of the settlement arrived at between the parties in the Mediation Cell, Tis Hazari on 18th April, 2006 and subsequently endorsed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 157 of 2005. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that a consent order cannot be altered or reviewed. There was no material before the learned Trial Court to come to the conclusion that the Petitioner had suppressed material facts. In any case the learned Trial Court could not have revised the maintenance for the period even prior to the date of filing the application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that besides the maintenance amount agreed upon between the parties, the Petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- at the time of anticipatory bail in lieu of streedhan items in favour of the Respondent on