The court emphasized that the provisions of section 488 CrPC are to be interpreted in a manner that serves the purpose of advancing justice and protecting the welfare of parents, wife, and children, and that the petitioner's consent to pay maintenance was not given under any mental disorder or infirmity.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the revisional court) pursuant to which the revision petition filed by the respondents against the order passed by the JMIC (Sub-Judge) Jammu dated 18.10.2019 (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) was allowed.

2. It is stated that the respondents filed an application under section 488 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court and the petitioner and the respondents entered into a compromise with the respondents and agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 15000/- per month to the respondents. The statement of the petitioner was recorded in support of the same and the learned trial court vide order dated 22.01.2018 disposed of the said application permitting the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondents.

3. It is further stated that thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the learned trial court for withdrawal/retraction of the consent accorded by the petitioner on the ground that father of the petitioner had passed away on 27.12.2017 and the petitioner was shattered and in distressed state of mind and the petitioner consented to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondents as maintenance in that distressed state of mind. The trial court vide order dated 18.10.2019 allowed the said application.

4. The respondents assailed the said order in the revisional court and the revisional court vide order dated 07.02.2020 allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents and set aside the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the learned trial court.

5. The petitioner has raised the following questions in the present petition:-

“i. Whether the proceedings under section 488 CrPC are entirely civil proceedings?

ii. Whether an application in terms of section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to retract/recall the consent provided earlier in order to arrive at a compromise when such consent was the outcome of the disturbed/perturbed mind?

iii. Whether the maintenance in terms of section 488 CrPC can be granted to a child who had already attained the age of majority particularly in the face of requirement of law i.e. section 488 clause 1(c).”

6. Mr. C.M. Koul, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the findings returned by the revisional court are not tenable in the instant case as the proceedings under section 488 CrPC are not essentially criminal proceedings in nature and further that the revisional court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the reasons given by the learned trial court in justifying his view of treating the proceedings as civil proceedings are not valid and are not in consonance with the object of the provisions of section 488 Cr.P.C. Mr. Koul further argued that the learned revisional court has virtually granted the maintenance to the son who is major and is not entitled to maintenance. Mr. Koul has further vehemently argued that the revisional court has not decided the issue whether the proceedings under section 488 Cr.P.C. are civil in nature or not but has proceeded to set aside the order on the premise that section 488 Cr.P.C. is a social welfare legislation meant for the welfare of the children, wife and the parents so it is required to be interpreted in that manner.

7. Per contra, Mr. R.K.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that once the petitioner has entered into a compromise subsequently he cannot turn around and say that he was in extreme distress and that is why he entered into a compromise. Mr. Thakur further submits that the major son who is unable to maintain himself is also entitled to maintenance.

8. Heard and perused the record.

9. From the record, it is evident that the petitioner had agreed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondents.

10. Now, the following issue arises for