SUSHILA DEVI Vs. SESSIONS JUDGE AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rahim, J. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, dated 31- 8-1995 passed in Criminal Revision No. 195 of 1995 and the order passed by the Vth Addl. Munsif- Magistrate, Azamgarh, on 17-5-1995 in Misc. Case No. 159 of 1992 under Section!28 Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE fact is that the petitioners filed a case under Section 125 Cr. P. C. against the respondent No. 2 on her behalf and on be-I half of petitioners No. 2 and 3, her minor children. THE trial Court allowed the ap plication and fixed Rs. 150/- per month for the maintenance of her two minor children and rejected the application of their mother, petitioner No. 1. A revision was filed by her which was allowed and the said order of the Munsif Magistrate was set aside. THE case was remanded for a fresh decision according to law. Against the said order of remand, respondent No. 2 went in writ jurisdiction before the High Court where operation of the order was stayed on condition to deposit Rs. 2500/- but sub sequently the stay order was vacated and the writ petition was dismissed for default.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has referred the case of Hashim Hussain v. Rukaiya Bano 1979 AWC 510, and sub mitted that when the matter was com promised and the respondent No. 2 had agreed to pay Rs. 500/- towards the main tenance on certain conditions he is bound to pay when those conditions are infringed. So according to him there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Magistrate. In that decision it was held that Section 125 Cr. P. C. does not prescribe any particular form in which the final order of the Magistrate should be passed. While granting main tenance allowance to the wife. The only restriction placed is that the maintenance allowance should not exceed a sum of Rs. 500/ -. It is open to the Magistrate while deciding the case in terms of the com promise to specify each and every condition in his order which was included in the com promise. But when he has mentioned that the case is decided 'in terms of the compromise' it obviously implies a direc tion that each and every condition incor porated in the compromise shall be a part of the order and binding upon the parties.