JUDGMENT B. P. Jha, J. This revision petition arises out of a proceeding under section 488 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). Shrimati Gujrati Devi, wife of Arjun Pandey filed a petition for maintenance under section 488 (1) of the Code. The matter was compromised between the parties. It is clear from the order dated the 1st of July, 1971, passed by the Magistrate that the case was disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. In my opinion, it is an order passed under section 488 (1) of the Code. If the order dated the 1st of July, 1971 is an order passed under section 488 (1) of the Code, Shrimati Gujrati Devi is entitled to get the order executed under sub-section (3) of section 488 of the Code. It is relevant at this stage to quote sub-section (3) of section 488 of the Code which is as follows :- "If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in manner hereinbefore provided for levying fines and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month's allowance remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made; Provided that, if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. If a husband has contracted marriage with another wife or keeps a mistress it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him. Provided further, that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due". Provided further, that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due". On a perusal of sub-section (3) of section 488 of the Code, it is clear that if the order is passed under section 488 (1) of the Code and if the husband fails to comply with the order passed under that section; the aggrieved party can move the Court for enforcement of the order under sub-section (3) of section 488 of the Code. In this view of the matter, Srimati Gujrati Devi was entitled to move the criminal court for the enforcement of the order passed on the 1st of July, 1971 on the basis of the compromise petition. 2. The counsel for the petitioner (husband) has challenged the order dated the 9th of June, 1973 by which the executing court passed an order in favour of Shrimati Gujrati Devi. He challenged the order passed under subsection (3) of section 488 of the Code on the ground that the criminal courts have no jurisdiction to enforce the order passed on the basis of the compromise petition. In support of his contention he has cited these decision in the cases of Govind Ram Narandas Vs. Ratanbai Nathu Ram, Shahbaz S/o Rustom Vs. Mt. Amirzadgai W/o Shahbaz and Budhu Ram Vs. Khem Devi. In these decisions it was held that in a case where compromise was entered into between husband and wife in a proceeding under section 488 (1) of the Code, and the husband refuses to pay the maintenance, the wife can enforce the compromise in a civil court, and an application under section 488 of the Code should not be entertained-The learned Judges have assigned no reasons for this proposition. I disagree with the opinion given by the learned Judges in these decisions. In my opinion, the Code of Criminal Procedure is a self-contained Act. The Act lays down a complete machinery for filing a petition for maintenance and for execution of the order passed by a Magistrate under section 488 (1) of the Code. I disagree with the opinion given by the learned Judges in these decisions. In my opinion, the Code of Criminal Procedure is a self-contained Act. The Act lays down a complete machinery for filing a petition for maintenance and for execution of the order passed by a Magistrate under section 488 (1) of the Code. The Code no where lays down that if an order is passed under section 488 (1) of, the C de on the basis of the compromise petition, the civil court will be the proper executing court. In the absence of any such provision in the Code, 1 think, the proper executing court is the criminal Court under section 488 (3) of the Code. In this connection the counsel for the opposite party referred to a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Debjani Bishwas Vs. Rasik Lal Bishwas. In the Calcutta case, the order was passed under section 488 (1) of the Code on the basis of the compromise petition. In that case it was held that an order lawfully made by a Magistrate under section 488 whether on compromise or otherwise must be deemed to be enforceable in the manner provided by section 488 (3) of the Code. I agree with the opinion expressed in Calcutta decision. In this view of the matter, I affirm the order of the Magistrate passed on the 9th of June, 1973 and dismiss the application. Application dismissed.