JUDGMENT - Smt. RANJANA DESAI, J.:---In this petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 8-1-1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 122 of 1989. He also prays that the order of the trial Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 299 of 1988 be restored. 2. The petitioner was married to respondent No. 1 in the year 1975. Respondent No. 1 filed application for maintenance against the petitioner under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") being Misc. Application No. 171 of 1979 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pandharpur. Admittedly, the learned Magistrate awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month to respondent No. 1. 3. Respondent No. 1 preferred Misc. Application No. 80 of 1982 for enhancement of maintenance. There is no dispute that the maintenance amount was enhanced from Rs. 60/- to Rs. 90/- per month by the learned Magistrate. It appears that as the petitioner was not regular in paying maintenance, respondent No. 1 started recovery proceedings. An application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 133 of 1985 was filed by her in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pandharpur, for recovery of the maintenance amount. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 accepted the said amount. She filed a purshis in the Court saying inter-alia, that, the petitioner was unable to pay her the maintenance amount and on account of that he was imprisoned on three occasions. She stated therein that there was a compromise between her and the petitioner and the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to her as and by way of permanent maintenance. Respondent No. 1 acknowledged the fact that, she had received the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- and she stated that she had given up her right of maintenance for all times. She also filed another purshis recording that she had received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for future maintenance and that she did not want to prosecute the present application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 133 of 1985 i.e., application for recovery of arrears of maintenance. The learned Magistrate passed the following : "Order : Parties admit contents therein when the same are read over and explained to them. 10,000/- for future maintenance and that she did not want to prosecute the present application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 133 of 1985 i.e., application for recovery of arrears of maintenance. The learned Magistrate passed the following : "Order : Parties admit contents therein when the same are read over and explained to them. Hence compromise is recorded." Thereafter, respondent No. 1 preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 229 of 1988 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pandharpur for enhancement of the maintenance allowance, which was sanctioned to her earlier at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month. In the application she stated that the prices of essential commodities had risen and the financial position of the petitioner had improved. The compromise was in execution proceedings. She had a right to claim enhanced maintenance. She therefore prayed that the maintenance be enhanced to Rs. 140/- per month. 4. The petitioner opposed the said application by filing his say. The basic contention of the petitioner was that respondent No. 1 had waived her right to claim maintenance because the petitioner had given her a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as lumpsum maintenance. In the circumstances, the application for enhancement deserved to be dismissed. He relied on the compromise arrived at between the parties in Misc. Application No. 135 of 1985. The learned Magistrate held that the compromise was valid. He came to a conclusion that the application for enhancement was not maintainable in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. In this view of the matter, he dismissed the application on the preliminary point. 5. Respondent No. 1 carried the matter to the Sessions Court at Pandharpur being Criminal Revision Application No. 122 of 1989. Before the learned Sessions Judge, it was urged that the so called compromise was in respect of the arrears of maintenance upto 1-3-85 and respondent No. 1 had in fact, not surrendered her future rights. The learned Magistrate had not enquired into this matter and he dismissed the application for enhancement on the preliminary point of tenability. The parties were not allowed to adduce evidence. It was also urged that the learned Magistrate did not cancel the original order of maintenance. The same was still valid not having been set aside by any Court and, therefore, respondent No. 1 was entitled to enhanced maintenance. The parties were not allowed to adduce evidence. It was also urged that the learned Magistrate did not cancel the original order of maintenance. The same was still valid not having been set aside by any Court and, therefore, respondent No. 1 was entitled to enhanced maintenance. As against this, it was urged by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 had voluntarily surrendered her right of future maintenance and she was not entitled to any maintenance in future. The learned Sessions Judge, upon consideration of the relevant provisions of the Code, came to the conclusion that under section 127 of the Code, the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to make an alteration in the maintenance allowance on proof of change in the circumstances. Under section 127(2) he has got jurisdiction to cancel the order. But in the present case, he had not exercised the jurisdiction of cancellation of the maintenance order and without cancelling the maintenance order, he held that the application for enhanced maintenance was not tenable. He further observed that, it was obligatory on the part of the learned Magistrate to cancel the order. It was not open for him to dismiss the application for enhancement without cancelling the original order of maintenance. In the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, there was no compliance of section 127(2) of Code and, therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate was illegal. He therefore allowed the Criminal Revision Application, set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class dismissing the application and remanded the matter to him with a direction to the learned Magistrate to decide the petition afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment. It is this order dated 8-1-1993, which is challenged in this Court. 6. I have heard at some length Mr. Nitin Dalvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Patwardhan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Pravin Singhal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The learned Counsel addressed me on the question whether a compromise of the type, which is arrived at between the parties is against public policy or not. While Mr. Dalvi contended that the said compromise was not against public policy and that considering the compromise, the learned Magistrate has rightly not enhanced the maintenance, Mr. The learned Counsel addressed me on the question whether a compromise of the type, which is arrived at between the parties is against public policy or not. While Mr. Dalvi contended that the said compromise was not against public policy and that considering the compromise, the learned Magistrate has rightly not enhanced the maintenance, Mr. Patwardhan argued that the compromise was against public policy and in any event, the compromise was in respect of the arrears of maintenance and that there was no bar for respondent No. 1 to make application for enhancement of maintenance. 7. Having heard both the sides, I am of the opinion that since learned Sessions Judge has, by the impugned order, remanded the case, there is no need to interfere with it. However, the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge that, it was obligatory on the part of the learned Magistrate to cancel the original order of maintenance and without cancelling the same, it was not open for him to dismiss the petition, in my opinion, is likely to be interpreted to mean that the learned Sessions Judge has directed the learned Magistrate to cancel the original order of maintenance. Whether or not the said order should be cancelled will have to be decided by the learned Magistrate on merits independent of any observation made by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 8-1-93. The remand order needs to be maintained with this clarification. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the view taken by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge that the application for enhancement is not maintainable. The learned Magistrate is free to re-affirm his earlier view or take a different view after hearing the parties on the question whether application for enhancement is tenable or not. 8. In the result, I pass the following order : (i) The direction of remand contained in the order dated 8-1-1993 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 122 of 1989 is maintained with a clarification that the learned J.M.F.C. shall dispose of the Criminal Misc. Application No. 229 of 1988 without being influenced by any observations made by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 122 of 1989 is maintained with a clarification that the learned J.M.F.C. shall dispose of the Criminal Misc. Application No. 229 of 1988 without being influenced by any observations made by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, particularly to the effect that : "In fact, it is obligatory on the part of the learned Magistrate that he should have cancelled the order and without doing the same, it was not open to him, to dismiss the petition." He shall decide the matter on merits. All contentions of both sides are kept open. The parties will be at liberty to file additional pleadings. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. (ii) Since the Criminal Misc. Application No. 229 of 1988 is pending from 1988, it is only proper that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class disposes of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order by him. (iii) Criminal Writ petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. (iv) Issuance of certified copy of this order expedited. Order accordingly. -----