JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

2. The present revision is preferred under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act against the impugned judgment and order dated 07.02.2020, passed by Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Family Court, Court No. 2, Sitapur in Criminal Case No. 1850 of 2014 pertaining under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by means of which the revisionist has been ordered to give maintenance to his ex-wife in absolutely illegal, improper and unfounded manner.

3. It is submitted that judgment and order passed by the Court below is illegal and perverse as the trial court has not taken into consideration that decree of divorce has been passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 18 of 2005 under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act and proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature and the established legal yardsticks postulates that the criminal proceedings are always subsidiary to civil proceedings. In compliance of the decree of divorce passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 18 of 2005 passed by the Court below, revisionist has paid permanent alimony amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-(Two Lacs) through Bank Draft No. 065192. Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act itself provides that the escalation/variation in the quantum of permanent alimony, therefore, the proceeding of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. It is further submitted that revisionist and opposite party No. 2 had entered into compromise agreement dated 03.04.2010 and had mutually agreed that revisionist would pay the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-(One Lakh Fifty Thousand) to opposite party No. 2 who, in turn, will withdraw all the pending cases against the revisionist and her right to claim maintenance will also be waived. In compliance of the compromise agreement, revisionist has returned all the gifts and other articles to the opposite party No. 2, therefore, the impugned order dated 07.02.2020 is liable to be set-aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 submitted that revisionist has not approached before Hon’ble Court with clean hands as the basis behind the enhancement of maintenance order from Rs. 1,000/-to Rs. 4,000/-per month is the concealment of income/salary by the revisionist in Civil Suit No. 1611 of 2005 and the change in circumstances as to the price index, day to day expenses etc. Therefore, the present revision petition must be dismissed in limine. It is further submitted that criminal case No. 1850 of 2014 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is filed by the opposite party No. 2 to modify the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Sitapur in Civil Suit No. 1611 of 2005 on the basis of change in circumstances in the income of revisionist, hence the impugned order is passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C.

5. Opposite party No. 2, relying upon the case law passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) Vs. Jagannath (Dead) reported in AIR 1994 SC 853 and K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 submitted that no litigant can play ‘hide and seek’ with the courts or adopt ‘pick and choose’. It is further submitted that opposite party No. 2 has already filed an appeal No. 200011 of 2012 against the judgment and order dated 07.11.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, Bahraich in regular suit No. 15 of 2005 which is still pending. It is argued that opposite party No. 2, wife of revisionist is not able to maintain herself as the inflation has increased so much from the date when permanent alimony was awarded and the respondent’s widowed mother is also living with her, hence, it is prayed that revision should be dismissed.

6. I have heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the entire record.

7. There are few admitted facts which needs to be taken into consideration. Marriage betwee