REV^^TITIONER RESPONDENTS 'p¥ IN THE HIGHCOURT OFJUDIGATURE,AT BILASPUR CKHAmSGARH Criminal Revision No. )^ 12006 V 1. Smt. Prabha Sao, W/o. Shri Bhimendra Kuinar Sao, aged about25vears. 'S. 2. ^imanshu Sao, S/o. Bhirnendra Sao aged about 2 years, thrbugh natural guardian Smt. Prabha Sao. BotK are R/o. C/o. J.S.Sahu, Q.No.112, Loco Colony, Gudhiyari, P.S. Gudhiyari, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus Shri Bhimendra Kumar Sao, S/o. hte Tizau Ram Sao aged about 30 years, Occupation - Agriculture andService. R/o. In front of Sahu Atta Chakki, P.S.AmanakaWard, Kota, Distt. Raipur(G.G.) REVISION U/S 19f4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984. \ XI-HC-78 3TT^TEfiTR?lN; (IW3T[^TshH *<1<4MI Sht<|cft 3ST '<||i||f1t|, 8iTny'l(»,(aldiyy .Or.&..^J.^ ;200(- Sll^l '4a<»i(yi^dt^8T) s^iTSirctrfitrsn^T 26.11.2005 p^sed by the ) Court, Ralpiir •whcreby thc| applicants iiader Section 12^ +iitti41-1 ^]tidTiftet^t<l^<?;i< ^aTf^iTsn^i 20.02.2007 Shri Alok Nigam aad ^hri F.S.Khare, counsel fbr the appUcaats. Shri Salycndra Sahu, c^unsel for tfae respondent Heard. >'' This Crimia.al Revision i^ directed against the oider dated ^nd Additional Principal FainUy applicati.cn preferred by the of fhe Cr.P.C. has been fiaalty disposcd of aad a mainten^nce of Rs.400/- & Rs. 250/- respectively has teen, passcd ^a favour offhe applicants on fhe basis ofconsent ofthe parties.| Learaed counsel for fljie appUcaats submits fhat fhe consent, iu fact, was accorded| for the puiposes of adjudication of fhe appUcation for interu4 mamtenaace, however learaed Paauly Court has disposed) of fhe naain application for maiateaance and consequenlpy, also disposcd af the iaterua application. It is fituther argued th^t the applfcants had prayed for mamtenaace @ Rs. 3000/- tmagination the applicaats Bad fherefore by no steeteh of could have conaproBuscd for mamtenance. For the aforesaid reasoii|s the order impugued deseryes to be set aside. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 HI*IWI Sh*ll<si ^3:5?'^.l|i|id'!-l^®T{l'a'i6,|Bi(-)i«y< ^TTO •^•^••cia^-lltFT 2006 311^1 M'<*(li,cll3st<^!iT) sii^rwf^ira; tPIT31]^TgiIMT ^h ^,^\^ ^ ??tITW(rf?(T3;n^T -2-- »hi<<Ffi<fl-i tiiHdT if feLsQ tRiwit' ^srf^R'sn^T'. •^ I have heard counsel for f4e partfes. { have perused the impugc|ed order. Froia perusal of fhe nnpu|gncd order it appears that the matter was taken up on the p^ayer of the partics, who have expressed that they do not,.:waa|t to lead evidence ia the caae and fhey are willmg that thc ^natter shoiiM bc adjudicated thiough mutual coiupromisc aai^ thereforc endeavor should be made for coiuprOinMC and acc|ordingfy whcn pardcs to flie procecdiags caaae to a coiuprom|ise aad consented for award of maintenaace as per agreement, |the ordcr impugncd has been passed. Section 19(2) of the 1-1 mentions that "no appeal sha|l lie 6-wn a dccaec or order passed by ttie Fanuty Court witl^ fhe consent of fhc parties [or fipoiu an order passed under Chs|pter K offhc Codc ofCriminal Piocedure, 1973(2 of 1974). Since the order has been consent of the respective par(ies, I axn of tte considered opinion that therc is no iUegaUfr caUs for iaterference uader Ui amily Court Act speci&calfy passal on fhe basis of mutual r in the impugned order which .e revfaifMial jurisdictioa. The revision is fhus dcvoid ofsubstalace aud the same is disaaissed at fhe adnussion stays itself. Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O,