- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State, as also learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, who is deserted wife of the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order dated 3.9.2011 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sahibganj, in Cr. Misc. Case No. 23 of 2009, whereby in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has been directed to make the payment of Rs. 2000.00 per month as maintenance to his dessert wife. Without going into the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was a separate criminal case for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code between the parties, in which present opposite party No. 2 had deposed on 3.12.2010 that both the parties have compromised the case and she did not want to proceed with the case any more. She had also stated that she had filed an application for maintenance and the said case had also been compromised. It appears that by that time, i.e., prior to 3.12.2010, all the witnesses in the proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., had been examined on behalf of the wife. Thereafter, the petitioner did not examine any witness in the Court below and the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed by order dated 3.9.2011on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the deserted wife. Subsequently, a joint compromise petition was also filed by the parties in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., on 24.2.2012, but the same was rejected on the ground that the case had already been disposed of.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this fact, even if the proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. had been disposed of by the Court below, the Court below ought to have exercised the power under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. which gives ample power to the Court to make necessary alteration in the order passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., on proof of a change in the circumstances. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsels for the State as also for the opposite party No. 2 have submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below, but it is admitted by learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 that a joint compromise petition had been filed on behalf of both the parties in the Court below after disposal of the said proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. From perusal of the order dated 24.2.2012 passed in Cr. Misc. Case No. 23 of 2009, it appears that only a joint compromise petition was filed by the parties. No application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the parties in the Court below. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the petitioner may file his application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., bringing on record the changed circumstances and the Court below shall dispose of the same in accordance with law on its own merits.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , it is directed that if the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner within one month from today, the impugned order dated 3.9.2011 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sahibganj in Cr. Misc. No. 23 of 2009 shall be kept in abeyance until the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., is disposed of by the Court below in accordance with law. With these direction and observation, this criminal revision is disposed of.;