The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order of maintenance made under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can only be cancelled or modified on specific grounds mentioned in the law, and a compromise between the parties does not automatically nullify the maintenance order.

JUDGMENT :

Jayant Banerji, J.

Heard Shri Raj Kumar Vaishya alongwith Shri Sanjay Kumar for the applicant and Shri Rahul Singh for the opposite party no.2.

2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has stated that he does not wish to file any counter affidavit in the matter and it may be decided on the point of law involved in this case. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, this application is being decided on merits.

3. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 27 April 2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba in Case No.12 of 2018 (Smt. Ranjeeta Vs. Ran Vijay Singh) whereby, in proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C., the court below has directed the deduction of maintenance amount of Rs.5000/-per month to be made from the salary of the applicant and has further directed conducting an inquiry into the second marriage of the applicant and to send the inquiry report to the Court.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, it is stated that proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were initiated by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant for her maintenance being the legally wedded wife of the applicant. This case was registered as Case No.194 of 2013. The application for maintenance was allowed by means of an order dated 18 June 2015 and a sum of Rs.5000/-per month was awarded to the opposite party no.2 as maintenance. It is stated that later on both the applicant and the opposite party no.2 entered into a compromise and the applicant filed Marriage Petition No.35 of 2016 under Section 127 Cr.P.C (Ran Vijay Singh Vs. Smt. Ranjeeta) in the Family Court, Mahoba on the ground that the opposite party no.2 was willing to live with her husband and prayed for cancellation of the order of maintenance dated 18 June 2015. It is stated that this marriage petition was allowed by the court below by means of an order dated 12 November 2016. Prior to filing of Case No.35 of 2016, Case No.18 of 2015 was filed by the opposite party no.2 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba under Section 128 Cr.P.C. for recovery of the amount of maintenance. However, from the order dated 12 November 2016 passed in Case No.18 of 2015, it transpired that the entire money was recovered from the applicant by the opposite party no.2 and she had started to live with her husband and had requested for setting aside the case. It is stated that the order of maintenance dated 18 June 2015 was cancelled on the basis of the compromise filed by the parties and the applicant and the opposite party no.2 started to live together as husband and wife. Thereafter, it is stated that the opposite party no.2 again started quarreling with the applicant and without sufficient reason she went to her paternal house in the month of March 2018 and on 22 March 2018, she again filed a case being Case No.12 of 2018 (Smt. Ranjeeta vs. Ran Vijay Singh) under Section 128 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the applicant in pursuance of the order dated 18 June 2015. By the order dated 27 April 2018, the court below directed the applicant to make payment to the opposite party no.2 at the rate of Rs.5000/-per month as maintenance in pursuance of the order dated 18 June 2015 passed in Case No.194 of 2013 and further called for the report regarding the re-marriage of the applicant. It is stated that the order dated 27 April 2018 is ex-parte and a final relief has been granted as an interim relief and the order is wholly without jurisdiction.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties in pursuance of which the orders dated 12 November 2016 came to be passed, the order dated 18 June 2015 passed in Case No.194 of 2013 had lost its effect and the revival of that order by the court below by means of ex-parte order dated 27 April 2018 is totally illegal and without jurisdiction. It is further contended that in view of the compromise and the co