JUDGMENT S.C. Pratap, J. - Petitioner no. 1 is the wife of the respondent and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are their sons. In 1981, petitioners filed an application against the respondent for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the said proceedings, the parties viz; the petitioners and the respondent entered into a compromise. Under the said compromise; the respondent herein agreed to pay to his wife-petitioner no. 1 maintenance at the Rs. 150/- per month and to each of his sons, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 herein, maintenance at the rate of Rs. 550/- per month. This order was passed on 1st March 1982. 2. More than one year thereafter, on 11th April 1983, the respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 17 of 1983 for a declaration that the petitioner herein, was not his wife and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 herein are not his sons and hence they are not entitled to maintenance and for a further declaration that order dated 3rd March 1982 in proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was obtained by fraud misrepresentation and was, therefore, not binding on him. In the said suit, respondent filed application (exhibit 5) for stay of recovery of maintenance amount passed in proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Trial Court by its order dated 13th April 1983 granted the application for stay. Hence this petition. 3. In support of the petition, I have heard the petitioners learned Counsel Mr. M.D. Joshi. The respondent, though served, has not chosen to appear either personally or through any Advocate of his choice. I have, therefore, not had the benefit of any argument on his behalf. 4. Hearing Mr. Joshi for the petitioner and going through the impugned order, I find the same to be unsustainable. None of the authorities referred to by the Trial Court applies to the facts of this case. Besides, there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure whereby application could be made for stay of a final order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Also relevant is the fact that the order in section 125 proceedings was one by consent. In the said proceedings, there was no challenge either to the status of the petitioner no. Also relevant is the fact that the order in section 125 proceedings was one by consent. In the said proceedings, there was no challenge either to the status of the petitioner no. 1 as the wife of the respondent or to the status of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 as the sons of the respondent. Moreover, and assuming that the Trial Court had even so jurisdiction to stay final consent order in proceedings u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Trial Court has not given any good reason for doing so. After holding that the maintenance proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are also civil proceedings, the Trial Court has passed the impugned order of stay almost as a matter of course and as if it was mandatory. 5. It may also be observed that under subsection (2) of section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be, vary the same accordingly. In the circumstances, it may still be open to the respondent husband to move the learned Magistrate for making an order under section 127(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure but only after decision of a competent Civil Court. That state, however, has not yet come. There is no such decision of a competent Civil Court so as to warrant invoking Magistrate's jurisdiction under section 127(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In all the circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Hence order: In the result, this petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned order dated. 13th April, 1983 passed by the Trial Court below application exhibit 5 (in Regular Civil Suit no. 17 of 1983) is set aside application is dismissed. 7. Rule is made absolute in terms aforesaid but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.