JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding in the matter of Section 125 Cr.P.C. pending before the Family Court, No. 1, Jaipur whereby maintenance, which was fixed for Rs. 1,000/- was enhanced to the tune of Rs. 1,500/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 preferred an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, No. 1, Jaipur, which was duly answered by the present petitioner but during the course of trial, both the parties entered into a compromise and on the strength of the compromise, it was ordered to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 400/- per month to the respondent No. 1 and Rs. 200/- per month to each of three minor children vide order dated 5.12.1998. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 preferred an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance and the learned Family Court, after considering the material on record, enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 1,500/- per month. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 4. The first contention of the present petitioner is that the wife is able to maintain herself and further she has been deliberately and unnecessarily not living with the petitioner and hence maintenance should not be ordered. 5. This argument is misconceived looking to the fact that on 5.12.1998, order of maintenance was passed on the strength of compromise arrived at between the parties and hence this contention is not sustainable. 6. The next contention of the present petitioner is that Muslim woman, who is a divorcee, is not entitled to maintenance and he has also relied upon the judgment delivered in Aziza Khan v. Dr. Amir Hussain, 2000 (2) WLC (Raj.) 358 . 7. Originally, order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was passed on the strength of compromise. Thus, all these arguments are misconceived and could not be considered at the stage of application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. 8. The next contention of the present petitioner is that now he is an aged person and his income has not been increased and hence enhancement in the amount of maintenance is not proper. 9. Thus, all these arguments are misconceived and could not be considered at the stage of application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. 8. The next contention of the present petitioner is that now he is an aged person and his income has not been increased and hence enhancement in the amount of maintenance is not proper. 9. A bare perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the present petition has not appeared before the Family Court and the Family Court has considered the fact that earlier order of maintenance was passed in the year 1998 and now children have grown up and at the same time cost of living has also been increased and looking at these facts, a minimum increase has been ordered as Rs. 400/- to Rs. 600/- and Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- per month. 10. In view of the above, this petition is baseless and the same deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.Petition Dismissed. *******