1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 32793-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 12.12.2008 *** Mehar Dass & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Bhulla Ram .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR. Present:- Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner-sons are aggrieved with the orders dated 21.10.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhari whereby the learned Magistrate, on an application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by respondent-father, directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.750/- each as interim maintenance to the respondent during pendency of main petition and also the order dated 8.11.2008 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari by virtue of which the revisional court dismissed their revision against the said order of Magistrate. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the paper-book carefully. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. What has been argued on behalf of the petitioners is that by dint of mutual compromise (Annexure P-6), when the properties were partitioned, it was decided that the expenses of respondent-father have to be borne by the son to whom Bhulla Ram-father gave his share of “bara” while the remaining five brothers were to pay Rs.250/- each to father and mother. But that compromise has not been taken into consideration by the learned revisional court while dismissing their revision, despite of its reference. A perusal of order dated 8.11.2008 reveals that there is no reflection therein as about the 2 said mutual agreement, whether it was referred during the arguments or not? In this view of the matter, the order dated dated 8.11.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the revisional court to consider this aspect of the matter, if the said compromise is already on the records of decided revision, but without being influenced from any observations made in this order and after hearing the parties. However, it is made clear that if the said compromise is not on records, then it is open for the revisional court to reiterate the view already taken while disposing of the revision petition. The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid modification, but without issuance of notice to the respondent, since he has to incur huge expenses to defend this litigation. However, a liberty is given to the respondent to file an application for recalling of the order, if he feel dis- satisfied with the same. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE December 12, 2008 Jiten