What is the effect of a compromise on permanent alimony in a proceeding under Section 125, CrPC on the remedy available under Section 18, HAMA? What is the maintainability of a suit for maintenance under Section 18, HAMA, despite a compromise reached between parties under Order XXIII, Rule 3, CPC in a Section 125, CrPC proceeding?

Key Points: - A compromise reached between parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, agreeing for a consolidated amount towards permanent alimony and giving up future claims, accepted by the Court in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not preclude the wife from claiming maintenance in a suit filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 [1000526450001][1000526450008]. - Section 125 Cr.P.C. is intended to provide a summary and speedy relief and not a full and final determination of the status and personal rights of parties [1000526450009]. - Any order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by compromise or otherwise cannot foreclose the remedy available to a wife under Section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 [1000526450010]. - A suit for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is maintainable in spite of a compromise reached between the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3, CPC (!) . - The Family Court decreed the suit holding that the respondent is entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month from the defendant husband from the date of the filing of the suit [1000526450005]. - The petition was dismissed [1000526450011].

What is the effect of a compromise on permanent alimony in a proceeding under Section 125, CrPC on the remedy available under Section 18, HAMA?

What is the maintainability of a suit for maintenance under Section 18, HAMA, despite a compromise reached between parties under Order XXIII, Rule 3, CPC in a Section 125, CrPC proceeding?