The statutory right to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. cannot be waived by mutual agreement, and the compromise decree in a divorce case does not affect the entitlement to maintenance.

Criminal Revision No. 1145 of 2005 has been filed by Smt. Manorama for setting aside the order dated 18-1-2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, in Misc Case No. 33 of 2002 whereby he rejected the application filed by Smt. Manorama under S. 127 Cr. P. C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded under Section 125 Cr. P. C. by order dated 12-4-1994 @ Rs. 200/-per month and earlier enhanced to Rs. 300/- by order dated 26-7-1996 under Section 127 Cr. P.C. Criminal Revision No. 3228 of 2007 has been filed by Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi for setting aside the order dated 19-7-2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur in Misc. Case No. 35 of 2006 whereby he rejected the application filed by husband Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi against Smt. Manorama under Section 127 Cr. P. C. for cancelling the order dated 26-7-1996 whereby the maintenance amount was enhanced from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- per month under Section 127 Cr. P. C. Since these two revisions arise between the same parties and the facts are common they have been heard together and are being decided by one order.

2. I have heard Sri Bal Mukund, learned counsel for Smt. Manorama, Sri K. M. Asthana, learned counsel for Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Manorama filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for maintenance and the same was allowed by order dated 12-4-1994 and maintenance was awarded @ Rs. 200/-per month. Later on Smt. Manorma filed an application for enhancement of the maintenance amount under Section 127 Cr. P. C. and by order dated 26-7-1996 same was enhanced to Rs. 300 per month. Again Smt. Manorama filed an application for enhancement under Section 127 Cr. P. C. as cost of living had increased and it had become difficult for her to maintain herself. According to Smt. Manorama her husband Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi a Class IV employee in a college, was getting Rs. 6000/- per month as salary and was also earning from private tuition and had agricultural income and she prayed that amount be enhanced to Rs. 1000/- per month. In reply Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi pleaded that it was wrong to say that Smt. Manorama was not able to maintain herself because of poverty. She is living with her father and he has no son and also has agricultural land as well as works in a private job. Smt. Manorama was also working in a private company and had good financial condition. Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi also pleaded that he was hardly getting Rs. 4600/- per month and had to maintain his wife, children and aged mother. He also pleaded that in original suit No. 97 of 1989, Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi v. Smt. Manorama, parties had entered into a compromise in the Court of Civil Judge, which was accepted and the suit for divorce was decreed. It was also agreed that they would have no concern with each other and at that time he had also paid Rs. 10,000/-as maintenance allowance in lump sum and Smt. Manorama had agreed that she would never file any claim in future regarding maintenance. In that matter learned Judge, Family Court held that there was a compromise between the parties and the application for enhancement was filed against the terms and conditions of the compromise and therefore he rejected the application under Section 127 Cr. P.C.

4. Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi filed an application under Section 127 Cr. P. C. on 6-3-2006 and prayed that on the basis of the compromise decree passed in the Original Suit No. 97 of 1989 recovery warrant issued against him as well as the enhancement order dated 26-7-1996 passed in Case No. 64 of 1996 be cancelled. He contended that the parties had agreed in the divorce case and that was decided on the basis of mutual consent and Smt. Manorama had taken Rs. 10,000/- as final payment for maintenance and was not entitled to claim any thing in future. He has also contended that in petition under Section 125 Cr. P. C. an order was passed on 12-4-1994 and a