JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.9.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi whereby in the revision filed by the respondent husband against the order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj in the Criminal Misc. Case No. 52/2010 refusing to drop the proceedings under Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code has been quashed. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code against the respondent her husband and the application was decided on 4.8.2004 and it was directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to receive Rs. 12100/- per month as maintenance and simultaneously it was also concluded by compromise that either of the parties shall not be entitled to make a prayer for alteration in the said amount in future. Thereafter owning to the rising cost of living, the petitioner moved an application under Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code The respondent appeared before the learned Magistrate and filed a preliminary objection praying that the proceedings be dropped because the same were initiated in contravention to the agreement entered into between the parties. The preliminary objection was rejected on which the respondent husband preferred a revision before the learned Single Judge which has been allowed by order dated 12.9.2011 impugned in the instant miscellaneous petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decisions reported in Balak Ram v. State, reported in 1973 Cri.L.J. 750 , Haroon v. Sainabha, reported in 1992 Cri.L.J. 3275 , Ranjit Kaur v. Pavittar Singh, reported in 1992 Cri.L.J. 262 , Hanamant Basappa Choudhari v. Smt. Laxmawwa, reported in 2002 Cri.L.J. 4397 and Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi v. State of U.P., reported in 2009 Cri.L.J. 139 , submits that any contract entered into between the parties which is against the specific provisions of law cannot be said to be anything but an unconscionable contract and as such no credence can be given to such an agreement. Learned counsel submits that the agreement which was entered into in the earlier proceedings under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code was totally against the letter and spirit of Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code and thus, the petitioner was not dis entitled to move to the trial Court praying for alteration in the amount of maintenance by filing an application under Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and placed reliance on the decisions rendered in A. Suryachandra Mouleswar Rao v. Durgamba, reported in AIR 1924 Madras 687 , Sham Singh v. Hakam Devi, reported in AIR 1930 Lahore 524 , Ram Saran Das v. Mt. Damodri, reported in AIR 1934 Lahore 864 , Purshottamdas Harjivandas Patel v. Rukmini, reported in AIR 1937 Bombay 358 , Debjani Biswas v. Rasik Lal Bisivas, reported in (28) AIR 1941 Calcutta 558 and Krishnappa Chettiar v. Slivagami, reported in AIR 1953 Madras 549 wherein the different High Courts have held that the parties are bound by the agreement arrived at in the earlier proceedings for maintenance and cannot be permitted to resile from the same. 5. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the order impugned, this Court is of the opinion that any contract which is in direct conflict with the provisions of the law cannot but said to be an unconscionable contract. Any contract which dis entitles any of the parties from invoking a live letter of law cannot be held to be an enforceable or a legal contract. In the present case also, the respondent husband contends that the proceeding decided by the trial Court in the earlier application was by way of a compromise and it was agreed that none of the spouses shall be entitled to move for alteration of the allowance and as such the wife cannot be permitted to resile from the said compromise as it bears the seal of that Court as well. In the opinion of this Court, the settlement which was entered into between the parties in the earlier 125 Criminal Procedure Code proceedings is totally contrary to the provisions of Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code As such the agreement which was the basis of the earlier order was an unconscionable agreement. 6. In the opinion of this Court, the settlement which was entered into between the parties in the earlier 125 Criminal Procedure Code proceedings is totally contrary to the provisions of Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code As such the agreement which was the basis of the earlier order was an unconscionable agreement. 6. Resultantly the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in revision whereby on the preliminary objection of the respondent husband the proceedings under Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code have been directed to be dropped cannot be said to be in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the misc. petition succeeds. The order dated 12.9.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in revision is hereby quashed. The parties shall now appear before the learned Magistrate on 27.8.2012 and thereafter the Magistrate shall proceed with the application filed under Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code and shall decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.Petition allowed. *******