Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by filing of criminal proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being Criminal Misc. Application No. 85 of 2002 in the Court of learned JMFC, Rajpipla by Respondent No. 2 and also by judgment and order passed therein, which was the subject matter of Criminal Revision Application No. 202 of 2004 before the learned Joint District Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch camp Rajpipla, which was decided by judgment and order dated 7.4.2005. The prayers made in the present petition read as under:— “A. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 7th April, 2005 passed by the Ld. Joint District & Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch camp at Rajpipla in Criminal Revision Application No. 202 of 2004 and further be pleased and set aside the order dated 18th August 2004 passed by the Ld. J.M.F.C. at Rajpipla in Criminal Misc. Application No. 85 of 2002. B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the proceedings of Misc.Criminal Application No. 85 of 2002 pending before the Ld. J.M.F.C. at Rajpipla, Dist.Narmada. C. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, your lordships may be pleased to stay the proceedings of Misc.Criminal Application No. 85 of 2002 pending before the Ld. J.M.F.C., Rajpipla. D. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, your lordships may be pleased to stay the orders at Annexure-A & B to this petition. E. Any other relief deemed just and proper may please be granted in the interest of justice.” 2. The case of the petitioner as set-out in Paragraphs 1 and 2 reads as under, which is reproduced for the ready perusal:— 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 7th April, 2005 passed by the Ld. Joint District & Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch camp Rajpipla in Criminal Revision Application No. 202 of 2004. Annexed hereto collectively and marked as Annexure-A are the copies of memo of Revision Application and order passed therein. The Ld. Joint District & Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch camp Rajpipla in Criminal Revision Application No. 202 of 2004. Annexed hereto collectively and marked as Annexure-A are the copies of memo of Revision Application and order passed therein. The Ld. Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order rejected the said application filed by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order dated 18th August, 2004 passed by Ld. J.M.F.C., Rajpipla in Criminal Misc. Application No. 85 of 2002 filed by the Respondent No. 2 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Annexed hereto collectively and marked as Annexure-B are the copies of application for preliminary issue and order dated 18th August, 2004 passed by the J.M.F.C., Rajpipla in Criminal Misc. Application No. 85 of 2002. 2. The facts of the case are as under:— A. The marriage of the petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 02.05.1955 according to hindu rites at Rajpipla. Due to wedlock between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2, the Respondent No. 2 gave birth to three children. Now all the children have become major and they have settled in their life. B. The Respondent No. 2 wife Ushakumari had filed Civil Suit No. 4745 of 1978 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad as a pauper seeking inter-alia relief/s as under: (a) allow the plaintiffs applicants to file this suit as pauper and be pleased to pass a decree directing to the defendant to pay Rs. 1000.00 per month as maintenance to the plaintiff No. 1; (b) Rs. 250.00 per month as maintenance to the plaintiff No. 2; (c) Directing the defendant to pay Rs. 98,000.00 as maintenance from April, 1969 to May, 1977 for eight years and 2 months as the rate of Rs. 1000.00 per month and Rs. 250.00 as maintenance of plaintiff No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 250.00 per month with running interest at 12 percent; C. The petitioner submits that after hearing and recording evidence from both the sides Ld. City Civil Judge, Court No. 16, Ahmedabad vide his judgment and order dated 20.08.1982 passed the following order. “The suit is partly decreed with costs.” The defendant - husband, is hereby ordered to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 1,10,376.00 ps. City Civil Judge, Court No. 16, Ahmedabad vide his judgment and order dated 20.08.1982 passed the following order. “The suit is partly decreed with costs.” The defendant - husband, is hereby ordered to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 1,10,376.00 ps. Towards the arrears which included past 3 years, arrears up to the date of the filing of the suit, as well as from the date of the suit till the date of decree. The plaintiffs are entitled to charge interest at the rate of 6% from the defendant on the sum of Rs. 72,625.00 from the date of the filing of the suit till the passing of the decree. The defendant to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 1250.00 i.e. Rs. 1000.00 to the plaintiff No. 1 wife and Rs. 250.00 to the plaintiff No. 2 child till she marriages, towards, the maintenance on 5th of every month from the date of the passing of the decree. The plaintiffs were permitted to file the present suit in forma pauper is, and therefore, the Court fees on the claim made by the plaintiffs should be recovered, and the Registrar, should send to the Government pleader, a memo of the Court fees due and payable by the plaintiffs.” D. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Ld. City Civil Judge, Court No. 16 at Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 4745 of 1978, the petitioner had filed First Appeal No. 78 of 1983 before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The petitioner had also filed Civil Application for stay of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Ld. City Civil Judge in favour of the Respondent No. 2 herein. The said appeal came up for hearing before the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. Due to efforts put up by the Hon’ble Court, relatives of the parties and advocates appearing in the matter, the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 agreed to file consent terms before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. The petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 on 21.02.1983 had signed the consent terms before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and requested to the Hon’ble High Court to record the same and pass the decree and terms of said consent terms. The petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 on 21.02.1983 had signed the consent terms before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and requested to the Hon’ble High Court to record the same and pass the decree and terms of said consent terms. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-C is the copy of said consent terms filed before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court. As per the terms No. 1 stated in the said consent terms the decree of the trial Court was confirmed, but if the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000.00 to the respondents on or before 31.08.1983 it shall be deemed to in full and final settlement of their total claims in Civil Suit No. 4745 of 1978. As per the term stated at Clause No. III, the petitioner was required to deposit of Rs. 15,000.00 towards the total sum of Rs. 1,50,000.00 within one week and the petitioner was required pay remaining amount of Rs. 1,35,000.00 on or before 31.08.1983. The Division Bench consisting (Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.D. Desai & Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Rathod, JJ.) vide their order dated 21.02.1983 recorded the consent terms and passed the order in accordance with consent terms. The Hon’ble Court was pleased to substitute the impugned decree passed by the Trial Court in terms of the said order. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-D is the copy of the order dated 21.02.1983 passed by this Hon’ble Court. E. As stated and submitted earlier that the petitioner had paid an amount against the arrears of the maintenance and amount against the future maintenance to the Respondent No. 2 and settled the matter of maintenance of the Respondent No. 2 amicably by obtaining the order in terms of consent terms. F. One fine morning in the year 2002 after almost 20 years after settlement of dispute of maintenance amicably before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court, the Respondent No. 2 Smt. Ushakumari filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being Criminal Misc. Application No. 85 of 2002 in the Court of Ld. J.M.F.C., Rajpipla suppressing the facts of amicable settlement of the dispute of maintenance prayed for maintenance of Rs. 30,000.00 from the petitioner. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-E is a copy of the memo said Criminal Misc. Application No. 85 of 2002. Application No. 85 of 2002 in the Court of Ld. J.M.F.C., Rajpipla suppressing the facts of amicable settlement of the dispute of maintenance prayed for maintenance of Rs. 30,000.00 from the petitioner. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-E is a copy of the memo said Criminal Misc. Application No. 85 of 2002. G. Upon service the process of the said Criminal Misc. Application, the petitioner appeared with his advocate and raised preliminary objection against the maintainability of the said Criminal Misc. Application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance at Rs. 30,000.00 p.m. from the petitioner. The Ld. J.M.F.C. without considering the earlier proceedings taken place between parties before the Hon’ble Ahmedabad City Civil Court and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat rejected the application vide his order dated 18th August, 2004 mainly on the grounds that, (1) after consent decree dated 21.02.1983 there is a change in the status of the parties and the said consent decree was lesser than the present status and income of the parties, (2) the Hon’ble Court has power to entertain application under Section 125 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure filed by the wife after consent decree as this is the first application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. H. Being seriously aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 18th August, 2004 passed by the Ld. J.M.F.C., Rajpipla in Criminal Misc. Application No. 85 of 2002, the petitioner had preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 202 of 2004 in the Court of Sessions Judge at Bharuch on the grounds and submissions mentioned in the memo of revision application. The Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch camp Rajpipla vide his order dated 7th April, 2005 rejected the said application on the ground that there is no bar to file application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after full and final settlement in the civil proceedings, hence this Special Criminal Application.” 3. It is thereafter that Respondent No. 2 filed the aforesaid proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. N.V.Gandhi for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Shakeel Qureshi for Respondent No. 2. Learned A.P.P., Mr. Sejpal, assisted the Court appearing for Respondent No. 1. 5. It is thereafter that Respondent No. 2 filed the aforesaid proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. N.V.Gandhi for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Shakeel Qureshi for Respondent No. 2. Learned A.P.P., Mr. Sejpal, assisted the Court appearing for Respondent No. 1. 5. From the perusal of the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the civil suit filed by the Respondent No. 2 being Civil Suit No. 4745 of 1978 which gave rise to First Appeal No. 78 of 1983 was settled between the parties and at relevant point of time, it was agreed that a total amount of Rs. 1,50,000.00 will be paid to respondents, and out of the said amount, Rs. 1,20,000.00 will be towards right of the wife and Rs. 30,000.00 will be payable to the minor girl. That being so, to file proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is uncalled for. The petitioner is aged about 71 years and Respondent No. 2 is aged about 68 years. This Court (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri, J.) passed order on 21.03.2007 as under; “1. Heard. As a result of perusal of records, it is borne out that the issue between the parties was settled by way of consent terms and by way of decree in First Appeal No. 78 of 1983 before this Court whereby the decree of the trial Court was confirmed but if the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondents on or before 31.08.1983 the said payment was to be considered full and final settlement of their total claims in Civil Suit No. 4745 of 1976 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. 2. However, the argument advanced by Mr Shakeel Qureshi, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 2 is that in view of the changed circumstances, an application by the Respondent No. 2 under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable. 3. Prima facie, in view of the fact that the matter is settled between the parties by way of consent terms in First Appeal decree, this contention shall not sustain. However if the applicant is ready to return the corresponding rupee value, as on today, of the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- paid to the Respondent No. 2 by the applicant in 1983, this Court is of the view that the application can be considered on merits. 4. However if the applicant is ready to return the corresponding rupee value, as on today, of the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- paid to the Respondent No. 2 by the applicant in 1983, this Court is of the view that the application can be considered on merits. 4. In that view of the matter, with a view to enable Mr. Qureshi to take instructions matter is adjourned to 29.03.07.” 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Qureshi for Respondent No. 2 has not spelt out as to what will be the value of Rs. 1,20,000.00 which was paid to Respondent No. 2 in the year 1983 while settling the matter and as to whether Respondent No. 2 is in a position, with willingness, to return that amount to the petitioner herein, so that she is able to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 7. This Court is of the opinion that the decisions which are relied upon by Respondent No. 2, which are produced by the learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 herein along with the reply dated 30.3.2009, has no application to the facts of the present case. If such a stand is allowed to be taken by any party, it will render all matters which stood finalised on entering a compromise and that will give rise to an atmosphere of uncertainty which will not be good for the people and the Society. Generally when any matter is compromised, parties do take that the matter has come to an end and it is finally concluded. It is very easy to say that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. operates in a different field, than the field which is covered by civil matter. But in fact, what was compromised by settled by Respondent No. 2 in civil matter was her right of maintenance. That being so, once that matter is settled, the right of Respondent No. 2 to get maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. does not survive because interse relationship between the parties comes to an end. Respondent No. 2 cannot have best of both the worlds. That being so, once that matter is settled, the right of Respondent No. 2 to get maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. does not survive because interse relationship between the parties comes to an end. Respondent No. 2 cannot have best of both the worlds. She cannot after having settled the matter in Civil Court as a full and final settlement of her right of can file proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 7.1 The complexion of the matter would have been different, if Respondent No. 2 had obtained an order of grant of maintenance in the civil Court and the matter was not settled, as a ‘full and final settlement’, then possibly it would have been possible for Respondent No. 2 to invoke Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.. The Court would have examined this question if the facts would have been so. The Court is of the opinion that when the parties have settled their interse rights in a Civil Court, one cannot have recourse under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 8. Besides the civil matter was settled in the year 1983 and it is only after long nine years that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is filed, in 2002. This itself speaks about the intention of Respondent No. 2 which cannot be said to be bona fide by any standards. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations, this petition is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned JMFC, Rajpipla in Criminal Misc. Application No. 85 of 2002 and confirmed by learned Joint District & Sessions Judge, Bharuch camp Rajpipla in Criminal Revision Application No. 202 of 2004 are hereby quashed and set-aside. 9.1 Taking into consideration the aforesaid discussions and the position of law, relief as prayed for in Clause-B is also granted and the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Application No. 85 of 2002 are quashed and set-aside. Rule is made absolute with no order as to cost.