HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARI-I, BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. 202 of 2006 w; Agb;axance: - g . Shri Shrswan Agrawal, cnsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent; oRAL ORDER (04..007) 042 Sunii Ku¢ar Sinha, J, Heard on admission. This petition is directed agt passed in Criminal Revision No. the order date 19.9.2006 175/2006 by the 11nd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surajpur, Disuict- Saruja d oxder, the learned Additional Sessions ire wo de y (C.G.). By the impugne Judge has declined to ntefer with the t orrs passed b the Magistrate in Misc. Criminal Case No. 205000 on 12. 1.2001 and 01.07.2006. The brief facts are that the respondent nled an applicaiion for grant of monthly maintenance against the petitioner under Secn'on 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, which was O. The said case came up for hearing on 12. 1.2001, as both the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent had nled a joint compromise application stating that d. Perusa‘l of order dated 12. 1.200 1 (Annexure— lication that registered as Misc. Case No. 205/ 200 L» the proceedingpbe dropped on certain conditions, on which the parh‘es had agree P] 3) would show that it was stated in the joint app the respondent was legally wedded wife of the pen‘tioner and the petitioner will never misbehave withy‘her in future. Rather, he .;/ ou d 1 " ains g /2 Petitioner Rajpal Sahu Slo Bhandari Sahu, Aged about 45 years, R/o Village — Pampapur, RS. 8r. Tehsil - Smajpur, Dist: Sarguja- (C.G.) Versus Resgondent Smt. Shanti So clalkd W/é Rajpal Sahu, Aged about 43 years, R10 Villagé: Pampapur, P.S. 8r, Tehsil — 4‘ ‘ ‘ - .Surajpxir, Dist t Sarguja— (C.G.) Presently residing at Village Kaushalpur, RS. — Ramanuj Nagar, Tehsil — Surajpur, Dist Sarguja—(C.G.) @ 2 Cr.M.P. No. 202 of 2006 will maintain her as a wifs along with his second wife namely — Anjani and he will fumll all the requirements of the respondent. It was also agreed that if on the ground of misbehavior of the petitioner, the respondent shall be constrained to live separately, the petitioner will pay to her a maintenance amount of Rs.1,000/- per month. This compromise was allowed and ultimately, the proceedings were hnally dropped. This order was never challenged by the petiiioner earlier to the nling of criminal revision No. 175/ 2006. It appears that on account of certain cause of action pertainmg to the order dated 12 01 2001 the respondent med an application under Section 125 (3) Cr P C for awarding agreed amount of maintenance to her on the bas1s of said order as according to her, the petitioner was not maintaining her. The trial Court recorded the evidence of various witnesses produced by both the parties and ultimately recorded a miding by order dated 01.07.2006 that after the compromise, the petitioner has driven out the respondent from his house and he is not maintaining her, therefore, the respondent would be entitled to receive the aforesaid amount from the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged both these orders before the revisional Court. So far as challenge to the order dated 12.01.2001 is concerned, learned revisional Court held vide para-4 that the petitioner has not setforth any ground explaining the inordinate delay'of about 6 years in tiling the aforesaid revision against the order dated 12.01.2001 which was med on 24.7.2006, therefore, the revision against the aforesaid order was hopelessly barred. About other order dated 01.7.2006, it is said that it was order under Section V125 (3) Cr.P.C. in execution case nled by the respondent, therefore, it was not required to be interfered with in the said criminal revision because the earlier order dated 12.01.2001 was not set aside by any competent Court nor any c1v11 proceeding was med against the said order i _ r " / w; / 3 clamp. No. 202 or 2006 I have perused the Orders passsd by two Courts below and have also perused the records ofthe Cr.M.P. No. 202/ 2006. Apparently, the order dated 12.01.2001 was never challenged by the petin'oner before any competent Court and the same became 01ml and uln'mately when in the execution proceeding, another order was passed, it was jointly challenged before the revisional Court andxthe revisional Court has rightly taken a v1ew that the rev151on hled against The aforesaid order was hopelessly barred Since the order m ongmal proceeding was operating 1n favour of the respondent and 1n the proceedmg under$ection 125 (3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate atter recording the evidence, has come to the conclusion that there were reasons with the respondent to live separately hom the petitioner as she was driven out h‘om the house of the petitioner after entering into a compromise between them, therefore, she was entitled to get the amount. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are enacted for social justice and especially to protect the women and children as also the old and inhrm poor parents and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. The provision gives eh‘ect to natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents so long as they are unable to main tain themselves, I do not'hnd any illegality in the orders passed by the two Courts below warranting interference by this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has no merits and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. In consequence, M.(Cri,)P. 2594/ 2006 for grant of interim , stay also stands disposed of. w; a Sdl- SUNIL KUMAR SIN'HA Judge vamS ; L ,