JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Anwarganj, Kanpur rejecting the application moved by the applicant dated 3-8-1981 in which a prayer had been made that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P.C. initiated by the opposite party were not maintainable. 2. Brief facts for the purposes of deciding the present application are that an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. was moved by the opposite party, who is admittedly the wife of the applicant. Those proceedings were dropped in view of an alleged compromise which had been entered into bet- ween the applicant and the opposite party. The opposite party again filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and in this application a preliminary objection was raised by the applicant that the application was not maintainable as an earlier application had been decided in terms of the compromise arrived to between the parties. The aforesaid preliminary objection was rejected by a speaking order on 11-2-1980 (contained in Annexure-9 to the application). It appears that thereafter the court below framed the following issue : "Whether the compromise Exhibit Ka. I was the result of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the opposite party. If not, with what effect ?" 3. The trial court was proceeding to decide the aforesaid issue after taking evidence of the parties. At this stage the applicant again moved an application for deciding the question as to whether the application was maintainable on the principles of res-judicator. The Court below under the impugned order dated 28.8-81 rejected the prayer made by the applicant and has decided to proceed with the application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. on merits. Learned counsel for the applicant in this application has alleged that in view of the compromise which admittedly had been arrived to between the parties, there was absolutely no question of entertaining another application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as under the compromise the opposite party was not entitled to any maintenance. 4. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. A copy of the application moved by the opposite party clearly says that according to her under the compromise the applicant-husband had to keep her and maintain her. 4. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. A copy of the application moved by the opposite party clearly says that according to her under the compromise the applicant-husband had to keep her and maintain her. An issue, as noted above has been framed on this question by the court below as to whether the compromise which had been relied was obtained by practising fraud and misrepresentation on the lady. The court below, in my opinion, is, therefore, proceeding in right way. It will first decide the question as to whether the compromise is a valid compromise and in case it is found that the compromise is a valid compromise, the next question which will have to be decided by the court below will be as to whether in view of the compromise the lady is entitled to any maintenance. 5. For the reasons stated above, in my opinion, it is not a fit case in which this court should exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings initiated for getting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The application is accordingly rejected. The stay order granted by this court on 4-11-1981 is vacated. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Magistrate concerned within a week from today who shall now conclude the proceedings at the earliest.