JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J.—The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. There was a proceeding by the respondent under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance against the petitioner. In that matter there was a compromise before the Lok Adalat ia the following terms : "1. That the respondent has agreed to give the cultivable land of his share which is about 5 and 6 bighas situated at village Kulahani and share of his house to the petitioner. The petitioner will cultivate the aforesaid land during her life time and will also enjoy its fruits in lieu of maintenance. The respondent will never interfere in her possession during her life time. 2. That the respondent has also agreed to give his nautor land situated at village Baglayara which is about 6 bighas in favour of Sh. Nand Lal who is son of the petitioner and respondent. He will cultivate or improve this land as per his choice Nand Lal will also look after his father and mother. 3. That the possession of the aforesaid property have already been delivered to the petitioner and Shri Nand Lai by the respondent. 4. That the compromise is acceptable to the petitioner and its contents have been read over and explained to her in Hindi and as such the application of the petitioner be decided accordingly." 2. The respondent filed a petition in June, 1994 for executing the order passed on the basis of the compromise the petitioner contested the same on the ground that he had already given possession of the property to the respondent and there remains nothing to be executed. It was pointed out by him that the respondent wanted entries to be made in the Revenue Record which could not be done as the respondent was entitled only to the possession of the land to enjoy the fruits thereof. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi over-ruled the objection of the respondent and passed the following order ;— "The J.D. has objected the execution petition inter alia on the grounds that the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Act, 1994 come into force and therefore this court has not jurisdiction to entertain this application. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi over-ruled the objection of the respondent and passed the following order ;— "The J.D. has objected the execution petition inter alia on the grounds that the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Act, 1994 come into force and therefore this court has not jurisdiction to entertain this application. The respondent has admitted the compromise arrived between the parties The D.H./petitioner has on the other had alleged that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition as the same is for enforcement for the orders passed by this Court. I have heard the counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. The original petition under section 125, Cr.P.C. has been decided in the Lok Adalat in 27-9-1993 and parties have filled the compromise deed Ex CA which has been admitted by both the parties. The parties have executed the compromise on their own free will and same has been challenged in any court and same has not been challenged. Therefore, I do not find any force in the objection petition filed by the respondent. Let warrant of execution for the compromise deed Ex. CA be issued and entries in the revenue records be also effected as per compromise deed Ex. CA. To come upon for 11-10-1995." 3. That order was challenged in revision by the petitioner before the District and Sessions Judge, By order dated 18-1-1996 the Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition with the clarification contained in his order. The said clarification is in the following terms : "...............In my opinion, there is no harm in case the warrant in terms of order dated 28 8-1995 passed by the trial Court in the execution petition to enforce the order to hand over the possession and to make entries in the revenue record only to the extent of putting a note in the remarks column or in possession of the girdwari and jamabandi is issued in favour of the respondent/wife Smt. Cheitri Devi alone because as per section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, if a Hindu wife holds the property in lieu of maintenance. This right of the wife gets enlarged into full ownership under the said provisions. Therefore, it can even be executed under section 125 (3), Cr.P.C. Thus, I hold that the impugned orders does not require any interference. This right of the wife gets enlarged into full ownership under the said provisions. Therefore, it can even be executed under section 125 (3), Cr.P.C. Thus, I hold that the impugned orders does not require any interference. Accordingly, it is upheld with above clarification and the instant revision petition is dismissed." 4. The said classification is not really clear. If the Sessions Judge hid opined that the respondent got an absolute estate under section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act by virtue of the compromise referred to above, there was no necessity for him to say “to make entries in the revenue record only to the extent of putting a note if the remarks column or in possession of the girdawari and jamabandi”. If he meant that the revenue record should show her possession and her title, the language used should have been different. 5. Whatever it may be, the question whether that the respondents owner ship got enlarged as absolute estate under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, cannot be decided in this proceeding. If such a question is raised by the respondent it has to be decided only in a civil court in a properly framed civil suit by the respondent. So far as these proceedings are concerned, the compromise merely says that the respondent shall be put in possession of certain land mentioned therein which she would cultivate during her life time and enjoy its fruits in lieu of maintenance. The compromise does not go beyond the same. The compromise itself records the fact that the possession of the land has already been delivered to the respondent herein and her son Nand Lal by the petitioner herein Once the compromise records the fact that possession has already been delivered, I do not know what remains for execution under section 125 (3), Cr P.C. Thus the execution petition filed by the respondent herein before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was unsustainable as the terms of the compromise had already been fulfilled by the petitioner herein as evidenced from the compromise itself. Nothing further remains to be done by the petitioner under the said compromise. Hence the petition for execution was not maintainable before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. 6. Consequently this petition is allowed and the orders of the District and Sessions Judge in Cr. Nothing further remains to be done by the petitioner under the said compromise. Hence the petition for execution was not maintainable before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. 6. Consequently this petition is allowed and the orders of the District and Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision No. 27 of 1995 and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Ex Petition No. 189-IV of 1991 dated 28-8-1995 are set aside. It is made clear that the claim of the respondent that her estate has become absolute under section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act is not decided in these proceedings It is left open to be decided in an appropriate civil proceeding if the respondent chooses to institute a civil proceeding. Petition allowed.