J.R.CHOPRA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Srikaranpur dated 21 -7 -1987, where by, the learned Magistrate has held that the petitioner is duty bound to pay the arrears of maintenance to non -petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 from June 1986 to June, 1987.
(2.) THE facts of the case briefly stated are: that non -petitioner No. 2 Smt. Murti and non -petitioner No. 3 Mst. Veerpal Kaur are the wife and daughter of petitioner Kaursingh. Non -petitioner No. 2 filed a petition for maintenance against the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.PC on behalf of her self and her daughter. In that petition, a compromise petition was filed by the parties. In the compromise, it was agreed by petitioner Kaursingh that be will pay Rs. 400/ - to Smt. Murti and Rs. 100/ - to Mst. Veerpal Kaur per month as maintentance. It was averred in that compromise that if at any stage, Mst. Murti starts living with petitioner Kaursingh, her husband she will not be entitled to any maintenance. It is not a conditional order as has been passed in Bhanwari Bai's case (supra), and, therefore, this case has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. It was further submitted by Mr. Garg that the husband can show cause for non -enforcement of the order/decree and if the husband offers to maintain the wife provided she is willing to get with him, that can be put forth as a ground for non paying of further maintenance. In this respect, reliance was placed on Mehrunnisa v. Noor Mohd. AIR 1671 Allahabad 138 and Harinarayan v. Rani Devi AIR 1952 Madhya Bharat 53. I am afraid, I cannot agree with the view eapressed by Allahabad and Madhya Bharat High Courts in view of the authoritative pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhupindersingh v. Daljit Kaur 1979 Cr.LJ 198, wherein it has been observed as follows: If an order for maintenance has been made against the deserter it will operate until vacated or altered in terms of the provisions of the Code itself. If the husband has a case under Section 125(4), (5) or Section 127 of the Code, it is open to him to initiate apprepriate proceedings. But until the original order for maintenance is modified or cancelled by a higher court or varied or vacated in terms of Section 125(4) or (5) or Section 127, its validity survives. It is enforceable and hence plea that there has been cohabitation in the interrognum or that there has been a compromise between the parties can hold good as a valid defence.
(3.) IT was submitted that the order passed on a compromise is not enforceable. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention. The order of maintenance passed on the basis of the compromise is very much enforceable and in this respect, reliance is placed on a decision of the Punjab High Court in Ch. Dharamsingh v. Smt. Rane 1970 PLR 363.;