(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
(2.) The present revision is preferred under Sec. 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. read with Sec. 19(4) of Family Courts Act against the impugned judgment and order dtd. 7/2/2020, passed by Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Family Court, Court No. 2, Sitapur in Criminal Case No. 1850 of 2014 pertaining under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. by means of which the revisionist has been ordered to give maintenance to his ex-wife in absolutely illegal, improper and unfounded manner.
(3.) It is submitted that judgment and order passed by the Court below is illegal and perverse as the trial court has not taken into consideration that decree of divorce has been passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 18 of 2005 under Sec. 13 of Hindu Marriage Act and proceeding under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature and the established legal yardsticks postulates that the criminal proceedings are always subsidiary to civil proceedings. In compliance of the decree of divorce passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 18 of 2005 passed by the Court below, revisionist has paid permanent alimony amounting to Rs.2,00,000.00 (Two Lacs) through Bank Draft No. 065192. Sec. 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act itself provides that the escalation/variation in the quantum of permanent alimony, therefore, the proceeding of Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. It is further submitted that revisionist and opposite party No. 2 had entered into compromise agreement dtd. 3/4/2010 and had mutually agreed that revisionist would pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000.00 (One Lakh Fifty Thousand) to opposite party No. 2 who, in turn, will withdraw all the pending cases against the revisionist and her right to claim maintenance will also be waived. In compliance of the compromise agreement, revisionist has returned all the gifts and other articles to the opposite party No. 2, therefore, the impugned order dtd. 7/2/2020 is liable to be set-aside.