HASHIM HUSSAIN Vs. RUKAIYA BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application was filed by Shrimati Rukaiya Bano under Section 125, Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance allowance from her husband Hashim Hussain, While these proceedings were pending before the trial court parties arrived at a compromise on 2nd September 1975. The compromise contained five clauses. The substance of the compromise which has been referred to in detail in the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly was that Hashim Hussain accepted the case of Shrimati Rukaiya Bano, He agreed that in future he would not harass her and would maintain her with food and clothing and that he will keep her with him and would not cause any inconvenience. He also agreed to transfer nine Bighas of land situate in Tahsil Nawabganj, district Bareilly in her favour. The fifth clause and the last clause of the compromise was that in the event of failure of the husband in implementing the terms of the compromise he would pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 200/- for the maintenance of Shrimati Rukaiya Bano. On this compromise the Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly passed an order on 2-9-1975 to the effect that (sic) ". . . Parties appeared and have filed a compromise. His application for the maintenance is decided in terms of the compromise.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of Shrimati Rukaiya Bano, Hashim Husain did not comply with the terms of the compromise and as such she filed an application on 7-7-1976 under Section 125 (3) Cr. P. C. for execution of the order of the Magistrate dated 2-9-1975 claiming a monthly allowance of Rs. 200/- for her maintenance and praying that warrants be issued against Hashim Hussain for the recovery of the amount. This application has been allowed by the Judicial Magistrate Nawabganj, Bareilly on 9th May 1977. Hence this revision.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders carefully. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order of the Magistrate dated 2nd September, 1975 is a very cryptic order. He should have passed a complete and specific order issuing directions. Having failed to do so the order dated 2nd September 1975 cannot be executed under Section 125 (3) Cr. P. C. On the other hand the counsel for the opposite party urged that the order dated 2nd September 1975 is an order in accordance with law. It was never challenged by Hashim Hussain either by way of a revision or an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. Therefore, it has become final and is binding between the parties. Its correctness and validity cannot be questioned now at this belated stage.