- (1.) BHAGWAN Din, J. Heard Sri VS. Kushwaha, the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist. The factual and the legal question involved in this revision is so trivial that the notice to the opposite party No. 1, is dispensed with.
(2.) THE opposite party No. 1, Smt. Memwati filed an application under Sec tion 125, Cr. P. C. against her husband the revisionist, Aram Singh alias Pappu for grant of maintenance allowance. THE Judge Family Court, Bareilly, after hearing the parties, examining the assertions made in the application and also in the written statement together with the evidence ad duced in support of the respective claims, allowed the application and granted main tenance allowance to the opposite party No. 1 @ Rs. 400/- per month, from the date ofapplication. After pronouncement of the judg ment the parties entered into a com promise and prayed the Court for suspen sion of the execution of the order granting maintenance allowance to Smt. Memwati. The Judge, Family Court, accepted the proposal of the parties and directed the suspension of the operation of his order. It is submitted by Sri VS. Kush waha that after compromise the opposite party No. 1 came to live with the revisionist at his house. She lived happily for a period of more than one year and discharged the matrimonial obligations. It is further submit ted that on some occasion she went to the house of her parents. After some time, the revisionist went to bring her back but she refused to accompany him for no reasons. Later on she filed an application before the Judge, Family Court, for execution of the order, by which she was granted maintenance allowance. It is urged that the revisionist opposed the application before the Judge, Family Court, submitting that once the parties have come to terms and filed compromise, final order, whatsoever, passed becomes inoperative and ineffective and such order could not be executed and acted upon. The trial Court refused to accept the proposi tion made by the revisionist and rejected the application.
(3.) UNDISPUTCDLY, by the order dated 28-2-97, the Judge, Family Court, has neither recalled, nor modified, nor set aside the order dated 28-2-97, granting maintenance allowance to Smt. Memwati. He simply suspended the operation of the order on the basis of the returning the parties to the terms. When the terms are revoked and the wife refused to live with her husband the suspension of the opera tion of the order automatically stand revoked, because the order was suspended for the reason that parties have decided to live together. In view of the facts and circumstan ces, I find no merit in the revision. The revision is, accordingly, dis missed. Revision dismissed. .;