JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:---Dadgubai w/o. Mohanrao Shinde filed an application purporting to be under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the maintenance which was granted to her in the earlier proceedings i.e. Misc. Application No. 75 of 78 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Latur. The learned Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the said application on the ground that in the earlier proceeding there was only a compromise and unless there is an order of the Court granting maintenance application for variance of the maintenance under section 127 is not maintainable. This order passed by the learned IIIrd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur on 28/12/1987 in Misc. Application No. 410 of 1987 was challenged in the Criminal Revision No. 20 of 1989 which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur was pleased to dismiss on 15/7/1989. This application challenges these orders. 2. In Misc. Application No. 73 of 78, an application for maintenance was filed on 14/8/1978 by Dagdubai. Notice was issued to the respondent by the learned Magistrate on the same day. After the parties appeared, the matter was settled and the settlement terms were filed at Exhibit 13 to the following effect: 1. Applicant is wife of the non-applicant. 2. Non-applicant has agreed to pay the maintenance to the applicant at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. 3. Applicant will be entitled to recover the amount from April 1979 and the amount shall be recoverable twice a year i.e. on 30.9.1979 and thereafter on 31.3.1980 and on the same dates in the following years. 3. This compromise was filed on 29.3.1979. It is signed by the applicant, non-applicant and their Advocates. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Latur was pleased to endorse "Read, verified and recorded. Order accordingly." This endorsement is dated 26.3.1979. It is, therefore, clear that the learned Judge has taken cognizance of the compromise and ordered that the proceedings are terminated as per the terms of the compromise and has passed an order in terms of settlement. 4. Whenever a settlement is arrived at and is read, recorded and accepted by the Judge of the Court and passed an order therein as "order accordingly", in law the settlement itself becomes an order of the Court. It is not necessary that the settlement is again reduced in writing. There is no procedure for drawing a decree in the criminal proceedings. It is not necessary that the settlement is again reduced in writing. There is no procedure for drawing a decree in the criminal proceedings. Therefore, merely because settlement is not again reduced in writing by the Judge, it cannot be said that there is no order of the Court. The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of (Debjani Biswas v. Rasik Lal Biswas)1, A.I.R. 1941 Calcutta 558 held that in proceedings under section 488 where a petition of compromise fixing the maintenance allowance is filed by both the parties, the proper order to be passed by Magistrate in such a case is "Petition of compromise filed. Order in terms of compromise" and not "case amicable settled. Petition of compromise filed. Rule discharged." In the instant case, I find that the learned Magistrate has passed a proper order and there was no question of any different interpretation to say that there is no order of the Court. Even assuming that such proper order is not passed, a party cannot be punished for ministerial lapses on the part of the Court. In the instant case, since there is an order passed by the Court, the learned Magistrate and the Sessions Judge have misread facts and law and have improperly held that since there was no order of the Court granting maintenance under section 125, no application for variance of the quantum of maintenance under section 127 is maintainable. This Court has taken a similar view in the Criminal Application No. 211 of 1988 (Manjulabai w/o Bapurao Mundhe v. Bapurao Trimbakrao Mundhe and another)2. A judgment of this court in (Syed Abbas Razavi v. Smt. Kaneeze Sakina and another)3, 1976 Cri. L.J. 47 relied by the Courts below is totally inapplicable since in that case, there was no proper order. A copy of the earlier proceedings under section 125 was already filed in this proceedings and it clearly shows that the proper order was passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. I, therefore, quash the order passed by the learned IIIrd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur dated 28.12.1988 dismissing the application of the wife under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Criminal Revision No. 20 of 1989 and remand the matter again to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur for decision afresh according to law. Looking to the fact that the matter is pending for a long time, I direct that the said application be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. Rule made absolute to the above extent. Application allowed *****