ORDER Rajeshwari Prasad, J. - This is a petition in revision against the order of Sri S.P. Verma, Special Magistrate, Varanasi dated 19-10-1964 in a case u/s 488 Code of Criminal Procedure which was confirmed by the Additional District Magistrate by his order dated 27-12-1964 when a revision petition before him was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case appear to be that Shrimati Rashmani, who was the wife of Nathu Ram, the present Petitioner, obtained an order for grant of maintenance to her u/s 488 Code of Criminal Procedure against Nathu Ram. The rate of maintenance was fixed at Rs. 30/- per month. Nathu Ram filed a revision against the said order of the Magistrate before the Sessions Judge, Varanasi. While the revision petition was pending before the Sessions Judge, Varanasi, parties entered into a compromise. It was followed up by filing a compromise in the court of Sri S.P. Verma Magistrate also with a prayer that the order of maintenance be cancelled. The learned Magistrate, however, passed a short order on 10-9-1963 which was in the following terms: Consign the case as prayed. 3. On 12-8-1964, Shrimati Rashmani resiled from the compromise and made an application before the learned Magistrate for recovery of maintenance for the past 11 months. Nathu Ram, the Petitioner filed an objection against the said application raising the plea that the application was not maintainable in view of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties. 4. The learned Magistrate took the view that there was no provision in the Code for cancelling the order of maintenance and further that the effect of the compromise was a mere postponement of the enforcement of the order of maintenance. He, therefore, overruled the objection. The learned Additional District Magistrate also took a view similar to the one taken by the learned Magistrate and proceeded to dismiss the revision petition. 5. The compromise petition consists of two paragraphs followed by a prayer. In the first paragraph, parties have stated that they have compromised their differences amicably and no dispute existed. Further that Nathoo Ram had withdrawn his case for restitution of conjugal rights against Shrimati Rashmani and he also did not press his petition in revision before the District Magistrate. The second paragraph of the compromise recites that Shrimati Rashmani had started living with Shri Nathu Ram in a homely atmosphere. Further that Nathoo Ram had withdrawn his case for restitution of conjugal rights against Shrimati Rashmani and he also did not press his petition in revision before the District Magistrate. The second paragraph of the compromise recites that Shrimati Rashmani had started living with Shri Nathu Ram in a homely atmosphere. No dispute was left between them and no claim for maintenance was preferred. It was also said that she started living under the roof of her husband. The prayer made in the application for compromise was that the order of maintenance passed by the Magistrate be cancelled and justice be done. 6. It is not clear why the learned Magistrate and for the matter of that, the Additional District Magistrate took the view that the arrangements made by the compromise was only of a temporary nature. One does not get such an impression after perusing the compromise. Apart from it, if after passing of an order for maintenance in favour of wife against the husband, the parties compromise their differences and the wife starts living with the husband and lives with him for some time, the cause of action giving rise to get maintenance u/s 488 Code of Criminal Procedure disappears. Relief can be granted u/s 488 Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis that the husband had inspite of having means neglected or refused to maintain his wife etc. If the wife had started living with the husband and the husband had started to maintain her as his wife, the question of fixing a maintenance does not arise and there is an end to the effect of order of maintenance if already passed. It may be that a fresh cause of action for making an application u/s 488 Code of Criminal Procedure may have arisen later on but that to my mind would not make the earlier order of maintenance executable. I am fortified in this view by a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Kuppuswami Padayachi Vs. Jagadambal, AIR 1947 Mad 423 . 7. The petition in revision is allowed. Orders of the courts below are set aside and the application of Shrimati Rashmani for enforcing the order of maintenance against the Petitioner is dismissed.