JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2008, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, whereby the learned Judge has granted a maintenance of Rs. 900/- per month to the respondent-wife, Smt. Sarala Soni, and Rs. 700/- per month to the son respondent, Deepak Soni. The said order was passed in a Lok Adalat. 2. Mr. Shambhoo Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, has vehemently contended that in fact, the petitioner-husband has already filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal right. According to him, on 28.06.2008, a compromise was entered into with regard to the willingness of the wife to go back with the petitioner husband. However, the said order has been passed erroneously. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 4. The filing of the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is no answer to an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In fact, it is a self-defeating argument. For, he would have to maintain them in case they were to rejoin him. Therefore, he cannot claim that on the one hand he is keen on having his wife and son back, yet, on the other hand, he is not willing to maintain them. Obviously, by taking such a stand, the petitioner is blowing hot and cold simultaneously. Therefore, the said contention is unsustainable. 5. Secondly, in catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that even if an affidavit were to be filed contradicting the observation made by a court in the order-sheet, the affidavit cannot be believed. According to the order-sheet dated 28.06.2008, it is the petitioner-husband who has agreed to pay a maintenance of Rs. 900/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs. 700/- per month to the respondent-son. Now the petitioner-husband cannot be permitted to take a contrary stand. Therefore, he cannot claim that in fact the compromise dealt with the willingness of the respondent wife to rejoin the petitioner-husband. Moreover, even a copy of the compromise has not been submitted before this Court. Therefore, there is no evidence to buttress the contention raised by the learned counsel. 6. Lastly, it is a settled principle of law that an order passed by the Lok Adalat, since it is a consent order, it cannot be challenged before a court of law. 7. Therefore, there is no evidence to buttress the contention raised by the learned counsel. 6. Lastly, it is a settled principle of law that an order passed by the Lok Adalat, since it is a consent order, it cannot be challenged before a court of law. 7. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******