- (1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the order dated 10-5-2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi in complaint No. 247 of 2001 (Smt. Laxmi Devi and Anr. v. Ram Narayan Gupta ).
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A for the State. Since the controversy involved in the case is legal one, I am deciding it on merits at the admission stage. The facts relevant for disposal of the application are that the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 had filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. against the applicant which was registered as petition No. 2026 of 1990 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi and in that case the parties filed compromise on 11-7-1995 in which it was agreed that the present applicant shall pay a sum of Rs. 500/- p. m. to his wife, present opposite party No. 1, and Rs. 200/- to his daughter, present opposite party No. 2. That case was decided in terms of that compromise vide order dated 12-7-1995. Thereafter, the present opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed an application for enhancement of the amount of maintenance under Section 127 Cr. P. C. which was registered as complaint case No. 247 of 2001. It was prayed in the application that the amount of maintenance payable to opposite party No. 1 should be enhanced, from Rs. 500/- p. m. to Rs. 5,000/- p. m. and the amount payable to opposite party No. 2 from Rs. 200/- p. m. to Rs. 2000/- p. m. thus claiming total amount of Rs. 7,000/- p. m. The application was contested by the present applicant and the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi, after hearing both the parties enhanced the amount payable to present opposite party No. 1 from Rs. 500/- p. m. to Rs. 1,000/- p. m. and the amount payable to opposite party No. 2 from Rs. 200/- p. m. to Rs. 500/- p. m.
(3.) AGGRIEVED, with that order the applicant has filed this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Learned Counsel for the applicant made one submission only before the Court, He submitted that the earlier order of maintenance dated 12-7-1995 was passed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties, and so the Court had no jurisdiction to make any alteration in the terms of that compromise, and thus the application moved under Section 127 Cr. P. C. was not maintainable.;