Important Point: Waiver of right to maintenance by an agreement is not permissible because such agreement would be void agreement as against public policy.

S.G. Shah, J.

1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr. Manan Mehta, Ld. APP and Mr. Abichandani, Ld. Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

2. Both these petitions are arising out of the same impugned judgment and order dated 31/3/2011 rendered in consolidated judgment in Criminal Revision Application No. 23 of 2010 and Criminal Revision Application No. 34 of 2010 by the Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar and, therefore, they are heard together and being decided by this common judgment.

3. Before the Sessions Court, Criminal Revision Application No. 23 of 2010 was preferred by Varshaben Himatlal Vejani; whereas Criminal Revision Application No. 34 of 2010 was preferred by her husband Rameshkumar Manubhai Sanghavi, wherein both of them have challenged the judgment and order dated 4/3/2010 rendered in Misc. Criminal Application No. 496/2008 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhavnagar, which was preferred by wife Varshaben with her two minor daughters under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short 'Cr.P.C.'] for maintenance of all of them from her husband and father of minor daughters, namely Rameshbhai Sanghavi. By such order dated 4/3/2010, the Magistrate has directed to increase the amount of maintenance of minor daughters only from Rs. 500/- pm to Rs. 2,500/- pm so far as minor daughter Sonal is concerned and from Rs. 500/- pm to Rs. 2,000/- pm so far as minor daughter Anjali is concerned. Whereas the Magistrate has rejected the application for enhancement of maintenance so far as wife Varshaben is concerned. Therefore, wife has preferred revision before the Sessions Court for her maintenance and husband has preferred revision before the Sessions Court to quash and set aside such order of enhancement of maintenance. However, the Sessions Court has dismissed both the revision applications and, therefore, order of Magistrate dated 4/3/2010 is confirmed. In view of such situation, before this Court, again husband has challenged both the orders, as aforesaid, regarding enhancement of maintenance in favour of the daughters; whereas wife has challenged both the orders by which amount of maintenance is refused to be enhanced in her favour.

4. Special Criminal Application No. 1095 of 2011 is preferred by wife Varshaben, whereas Special Criminal Application No. 1765 of 2011 is preferred by husband Rameshbhai.

5. I have heard learned advocates for both the parties at length and perused the impugned orders and available record. Since such applications are pending for last five years and notices were already issued before five years, it would not be appropriate to dispose of them on technical ground that practically the impugned orders are not subject to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution by such Special Criminal Application, but considering the fact that there are concurrent findings of similar nature against both the sides and considering restriction of second revision in case of concurrent findings, such Special Criminal Applications might have been preferred and probably it may be the reason for issuing the notice to the otherside, otherwise there is no reason to entertain any such Special Criminal Application in absence of any glaring illegality or irregularity or miscarriage of justice or arbitrariness or perverseness in the concurrent findings by two Courts below. It is also quite clear and obvious that in such Special Criminal Application, it would not be appropriate for this Court to reappreciate the evidence only because such petitions are filed and to interfere or to modify the impugned judgment and order only because of possibility of arriving at some different interpretation and conclusion based upon the available evidence on record. In other words, the prayer in the petitions is to quash and set aside the impugned orders and, therefore, though these are Special Criminal Applications, practically right and jurisdiction of this Court is almost similar to that of revisional Court to