- (1.) BY Court -Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.6.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur, in Criminal Revision No.6 of 2009, whereby, revision filed by opposite parties No. 2 to 4 herein, was allowed by the learned Revisional Court below. The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The petitioner is husband of opposite party No. 2 Alif Noor Bibi. An application was filed for maintenance by opposite party No. 2 wife against the petitioner, before the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 64 of 2004. The said application was allowed and the petitioner has been directed to give maintenance of Rs.250/ - per month to the opposite parties with effect from 11.6.2004. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a criminal revision before the Sessions Court and it appears that during pendency of the said Criminal Revision No. 4 of 2008 there was a compromise between the parties and the parties started living together on the basis of which, the said revision was dropped by order dated 3.10.2007. Subsequently, it is alleged that again opposite parties were driven out by the petitioner and the filed application for maintenance on 22.10.2008 in the said Criminal Misc. Case No. 64 of 2004 and after hearing both the parties the order was passed on 21.1.2009. The order dated 21.1.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 64 of 2004 has been brought on record as Annexure -4, which shows that the order was passed with consent of both the parties whereby, the amount of maintenance was directed to be paid to the opposite parties again with effect from January 2009. However, it appears that the said order was again challenged by the opposite parties herein before the Revisional Court below which was numbered as Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2009. The said criminal revision was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge. Pakur by the impugned judgment dated 24.6.2009. whereby the order dated 21.1.2009 passed by learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate was set aside, as the Revisional Court was of the view that originally by order dated 3.10.2007 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 64 of 2004 the maintenance was directed to be paid with effect from 11.6.2004. In the revision application which was dropped on the basis of compromise between the parties the said order dated 3.10.2007 was not set aside and the same was still in force. Learned Court below found that in the said circumstances the subsequent order dated 21.1.2009 was contrary to the previous. order dated 3.10.2007 and the same was not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly the said order dated 21.1.2009 was set aside by the Revisional Court below.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has taken a short point in this revision and has submitted that the order dated 21.1.2009 was a consent order which could not have been challenged in revision by the private opposite parties herein and accordingly the impugned Judgment passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.;