- (1.) K. D. Shahi, J. This revision has been filed by Uma Shanker Singh, the revisionist/applicant against the order dated 6th September, 1990 parsed by Sri Jhumman Lal, IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Criminal Revision No. 37 of 1990, by which the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the learned IInd Additional Munisf Magistrate, Mirzapur in Criminal Case No. 51 of 1989-Smt. Meera Devi v. Uma Shanker Singh, under Section 125, Cr. P. C.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Smt. Meera Devi has filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. for grant of monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- (rupees five hundred ). On 6th April, 1990 com promise was filed by which the parties compromised the case on a lump-sum pay ment of Rs. 6,500/ -. THE learned Magistrate accepted the compromise and decided the case. Being aggrieved by this order, Smt. Meera Devi filed an objection before the learned Sessions Judge who, in his order, held that the compromise is not binding upon the parties because it is illegal as under the provisions of Section 125, Cr. PC only monthly maintenance is to be given, there cannot be a lump- sum payment. The learned counsel for the revisionist referred a ruling reported in Punn Dev v. Mt Bishnuli, AIR 1950 All. 94, which was based on the provisions under Section 488 of old Code of Criminal Procedure, in which the com promise was arrived that certain plots shall be given to the wife in lieu of maintenance. In this particular ruling, there was no decision as to whether a compromise can be arrived at con trary to the provision of Section 125, Cr. P. c The question is not so simple as argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The compromise was challenged by the wife immediately and she immediately filed an objection challenging the said compromise inter alia on ground of fraud as well. In this ruling the wife has also appeared and filed counter-affidavit alleging therein that the said compromise was a forged one and she never entered into a compromise nor she made the alleged compromise. The revisional Court allowed the revision only on the ground that the maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P. C can be only monthly but if he had gone into these facts as well that the wife has challenged the compromise as being forged, then also the said compromise was to be cancelled.
(3.) I do not find any illegality or ir regularities in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The revision has got no force and is to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;