A compromise entered into between the parties in a maintenance proceeding under S. 125 Cr.P.C. does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain an application under S. 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance.

This revision is directed against the order in M.P. No. 531 of 1985 in M.P. 110 of 1985 in M.C. 500 of 1978, on the file of the Second Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras.

2. The revision petitioner is one Padmanabhan. The respondent, Bama is his wife. Bama, the respondent, filed an application under S. 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. Parties and their respective counsel made a joint endorsement fixing the maintenance at Rs. 150/- per month. But the respondent filed a petition in M.P. 531 of 1985 under S. 127 Cr.P.C. claiming enhanced maintenance as she finds herself unable to maintain with the sum of Rs. 150/- per month. She prayed for a sum of Rs. 400/- per month.

3. The revision petitioner filed an application contending inter alia that the petition under S. 127 Cr.P.C. by the wife is not maintainable. The contention taken by the petitioner is that the endorsement on the petition for maintenance under S. 125 Cr.P.C. was made by both the husband and the wife 'without prejudice to their contentions' and therefore the petition for enhancement of the maintenance under S. 127 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in the absence of a finding that the husband, though having means, has neglected or refused to maintain and that the wife has no means to maintain herself. His further contention is that the Second Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore Madras, has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the parties are living at Mambalam and Kodambakkam and the Magistrate at Saidapet alone has jurisdiction to try the petition (This point is taken only in the additional counter in Cr.M.P. 110 of 1985 and not in M.P. 531 of 1985).

4. The learned Magistrate found that the petition in M.P. No. 110 of 1985 filed under S. 127 Cr.P.C. is perfectly maintainable and dismissed the petition filed in M.P. No. 531 of 1985. The revision petitioner is aggrieved and has filed this revision.

5. Mangayamma v. Appalaswami, 1931 AIR(Mad) 185 (1) 1931 (32) CrLJ 688) is an authority for the proposition that if the compromise of which the essential part is passing of an order under S. 488 Cr.P.C. (old Code) such an order can be enforced under S. 488 Cr.P.C. (old Code), but if the compromise is independent of the Court the court would be under no necessity to pass an order under S. 488 Cr.P.C. (old Code). It was pointed out by the learned Judge in that case that the husband was prepared to consent to judgment without giving the petitioner any further trouble so long as her claim for maintenance was reasonable and therefore the Magistrate passed orders in terms of that agreement or compromise, a very sensible arrangement which will not in any way detract from the force of the order. It must at once be pointed out that in this case the compromise was made through Court.

6. The next case is Hashim Hussain v. Smt. Rukaiya Bano, 1979 CrLJ 1143 (All). That was a case where an application was filed by one Rukaiya Bano under S. 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from her husband, Hashim Hussaih. The matter was compromised. The compromise contained five clauses and one of the clauses was that in the event of the failure of the husband in implementing the terms of the compromise, he will pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 200/- for the maintenance of Rukaiya Bano. The trial Magistrate passed an order which is to the effect that the parties appear and file a compromise and that the application for maintenance is decided in terms of the compromise. The Court took the view that the order passed by the Magistrate is a valid order passed in accordance with law under S. 125, Cr.P.C. The learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court pointed out that S. 125 Cr.P.C. does not prescribe any particular form in which the final order of the Magistrate should be passed in granting maintenance allowance to the wife and that the only restriction placed is that the maintenance allowance should not exceed a sum of Rs. 500/-.

7. Sivarajan v. Meenakshi, 1966 (1) ILR(Ker) 165 was a case where the wif