JUDGMENT

Yashoda Nandan, J. - The main question arising for consideration in this reference is as to whether an order passed u/s 488(1), Code of Criminal Procedure is rendered ineffective and inoperative because of a temporary reunion between the parties to the proceedings. The case has been referred to a larger Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court because of the conflict between Pearey Lal v. Smt. Naraini 1935 AWR 11331 decided by Ganga Nath, J. and Nathu Ram v. Smt. Rashmani 1967 AWR 722 decided by Rajeshwari Prasad, J.

2. The relevant facts giving rise to this reference are that the Applicant Smt. Phulbasi who is admittedly the legally wedded wife of the opposite party, Shivnath, made an application in 1952 u/s 488, Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of maintenance allowance on the ground that her husband neglected and refused to maintain her. Her application was allowed and Shivnath was ordered to pay Rs. 30/- per month to her as maintenance allowance. A revision preferred by Shivnath was dismissed on 9-7-1954. Thereafter Smt. Phulbasi made an application for recovery of arrears of maintenance allowance but some sort of reconciliation took place between the parties, as a result of which the Applicant went back to the house of Shivnath and actually lived with him for about a week. Thereafter, it is alleged, that Shivnath again turned out Smt. Phulbasi.

3. On 23--9--1965, the Applicant filed an application before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandauli, Varanasi, for enforcement of the order u/s 488(1), Code of Criminal Procedure. She prayed for realisation of Rs. 345/- as arrears of maintenance allowance for a period of 11-1/2 months. The claim of the Applicant was resisted by the opposite party, Shivnath. The learned Magistrate took the view that since there had been an earlier compromise between the parties the original order passed u/s 488(1), Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the Applicant could not be enforced. He further took the view that since the original order granting maintenance allowance to the Applicant had not been filed, it was not possible "to determine the date from which the amount became due, though the realisation proceedings can betaken for an amount of one year only." Accordingly, he rejected the application made by Smt. Phulbasi.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Smt. Phulbasi went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi. The learned Sessions Judge, relying on the decision of Pearey Lal (supra) and certain other reported cases, took the view that the earlier compromise between the parties, as a result of which Smt. Phulbasi had resided with her husband for about a week, did not disentitle the Applicant from claiming enforcement of the order passed in her favour u/s 488(1), Code of Criminal Procedure. He also took the view that the application made by the Applicant was maintainable and she could claim arrears of maintenance allowance for a period of one year preceding the date of the application. The learned Sessions Judge made a recommendation to this Court that the order passed by the learned Magistrate be set aside and a warrant may be issued for the recovery of the arrears of the maintenance allowance claimed by the Applicant.

5. When the reference came up for hearing before Seth, J. his attention was invited to the decision of Rajeshwari Prasad, J. in Nathu Ram (supra) in which the view was taken that if after an order u/s 488 Sub-section (1) was passed in favour of a wife against her husband, the parties compromised their differences and the wife lived with her husband for some time, the cause of action to get maintenance u/s 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, would disappear. The learned Judge took the view that if a fresh cause of action arose, it was open to the wife to apply afresh for an order u/s 488 Sub-section (1), Code of Criminal Procedure. Unfortunately the earlier decision of Ganga Nath, J. in Pearey Lal (supra) was