The compromise petition did not restrict maintenance to the children's age of majority, and the court had the right to entertain a petition for enhanced maintenance under S.489 Cr. PC. The court also considered the change in the petitioner's circumstances and granted enhanced maintenance to respondents 2 to 5.

1. The petitioner who was the husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 to 5, has come up in revision against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengannur in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 862/68 which arose out of miscellaneous case No. 54/62 of the same court enhancing the maintenance to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents 2 to 5 from Rs. 22/-to Rs. 50/- a month.

2. The respondents filed miscellaneous case No. 54/62 in the lower court under S.488 Cr. PC. for maintenance alleging that the petitioner neglected to maintain them. During the pendency of that petition the marriage relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was dissolved through court and the claim of respondents 2 to 5 for maintenance to be paid by the petitioner was also settled on the basis of a compromise petition put in the lower court on 7 2 63. The petitioner and the 1st respondent allowed an order to be passed by the lower court granting maintenance to respondents 2 to 5 at the rate of Rs. 5-50 each every month beginning from 7 2 63. That order has been in force since then.

3. While so, the respondents filed the criminal miscellaneous petition referred to above in miscellaneous case No. 54/62 on 5 6 68 demanding for higher rate of maintenance to respondents 2 to 5 at the rate of Rs. 100/-a month on the ground that there had been change in the circumstances of the parties. The respondents contended that at the time of the filing of the compromise petition the salary of the petitioner as an assistant teacher was only Rs. 140/ -while his present salary as the Headmaster of one Lower Primary School at Kayamkulam was Rs. 278/-as show in Ext. P1 certificate issued by the Asst. Educational Officer, Kayamkulam. The petitioner, without disputing the quantum of his salary, contended that he had to maintain his second wife and to pay instalments of the money which he borrowed as loan from the Government as well as to contribute amount to the Provident Fund. But, the court on a consideration of the evidence in the case passed the impugned order on 231168 enhancing the rate of maintenance to Rs. 50/- from the original amount of Rs. 22/-. The sum of Rs. 50/-was fixed allowing Rs. 20/-to the 2nd respondent and Rs. 10/-each to the respondents 3 to 5.

4. The learned counsel of the revision petitioner raises the question that once a compromise was entered into between the petitioner and the 1st respondent in respect of the maintenance claim made by respondents 2 to 5 there had been a conclusive settlement of the claim which thereafter could be agitated only through civil court and that the lower court exercising jurisdiction under S.488 Cr. PC. has no right to entertain a petition under S.489 Cr. PC. and afford any relief towards the claim for enhanced maintenance. As according to the learned counsel the contention under S.489 Cr. PC. that there had been change in the circumstances of the parties would tantamount to an unsettling solemn contract entered into between the parties under the compromise deed. So, it is contended that the claim for enhanced maintenance is not sustainable.

5. It is admitted that the compromise petition dated 7 2 63 in the earlier proceeding was made by the petitioner and the 1st respondent jointly agreeing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5.50, to each of the respondents 2 to 5 a month and that on the basis of that petition the court below passed an order to that effect. Though there was an agreement in the compromise petition that the maintenance shall be paid at the rate agreed upon by them until the children attain the age of majority, no such condition was attached to the order passed by the lower court on the same date. It is, therefore, clear that the compromise relied upon in the instant case is not connected with any other consideration or condition. The order was to pay maintenance at certain rate to the children of the petitioner. If the compromise contain