JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PARIHAR, J.

1. The present judgment shall dispose of two connected petitions. CRM(M) No. 444/2020 has been filed by the petitioner–wife laying challenge to the order dated 03.11.2020 passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban (hereinafter referred to as “the Revisional Court”), whereby the order dated 29.06.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramban “the trial court” in proceedings under Section 488 Cr.P.C was set aside. CRM(M) No. 279/2021 has been preferred by the respondent, calling in question the order directing deduction of Rs.5,35,192/- from his salary at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month till realization.

2. Briefly stated, the parties were married in the year 1990 and one son was born out of the wedlock, who by now has already attained majority. The petitioner alleged that the respondent contracted a second marriage, whereupon she instituted proceedings under Sections 494/109 RPC along with a petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sub-Judge, Ramban. On 28.08.1995, the parties entered into a compromise, in pursuance whereof the wife withdrew the complaint and the maintenance petition upon receipt of Rs.10,000/- as full and final settlement. The proceedings were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. It is also alleged that a customary divorce (farakhtnama) was executed and thereafter the parties started living separately.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application on behalf of her minor son seeking maintenance in the year 2003 which was settled before Lok Adalat with the respondent agreeing to pay Rs.300/- per month till the child attained majority. In later proceedings, maintenance was enhanced to Rs.600/ and in terms of another order dt.31.07.2007 same was enhanced to Rs.1000/-per month w.e.f. 1.1. 2007. In all subsequent proceedings she only claimed maintenance for her minor child and projected herself as a divorcee.

4. On 29.06.2007, the petitioner lodged a fresh complaint alleging bigamy. FIR No. 86/2007 was registered and charge-sheet filed before the Court of Sessions Judge, Ramban. The said court, taking into account the earlier compromise dated 28.08.1995 and invoking Section 403 Cr.P.C., discharged the respondent vide order dated31.12.2007.

5. Thereafter, on 14.03.2008, the petitioner filed a fresh petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C. without disclosing the earlier proceedings. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramban, vide order dated 07.12.2011 dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner had failed to establish subsistence of marital relationship and that the respondent had placed sufficient material to show dissolution of marriage by mutual/customary divorce.

6. The petitioner challenged the said order in revision. The Sessions Judge, Ramban, vide order dated 07.12.2012, set aside the dismissal and remanded the matter with directions to either call upon the respondent to seek determination of dissolution of marriage from a competent Court or frame an issue regarding the existence and proof of customary divorce and permit the parties to lead evidence and decide the matter afresh.

7. During the pendency of the proceedings after remand, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and on 23.11.2013 the parties entered into a settlement whereby the respondent agreed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as full and final permanent alimony and the marriage was to stand dissolved. The amount was to be paid by 20.12.2013. On account of non-payment, the petitioner challenged the Lok Adalat award in writ proceedings and the same was set aside, directing the trial Court to decide the maintenance petition afresh.

8. Upon reconsideration, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramban, vide order dated 29.06.2020 allowed the petition and directed the respondent to pay maintenance at Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of filing of petition i.e. 14.03.2008 with 10% annual enhancement.

9. The respondent preferred a revision petition, which was allowed by Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban vide order dated 03.11.2