JUDGMENT Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral) Km. Sabia and Km. Sabnam, both daughters of Arshad Hasan, moved an application before the Addl. Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, through their guardian mother (Smt. Mohsina) for awarding the maintenance. Such an application was directed against Arshad Hasan, father of Km. Sabia and Km. Sabnam and husband of Smt. Mohsina, the guardian. It was stated, among other things, in the application that both the daughters were living under the guardianship of their mother in village Dandera, District Haridwar. Sabia passed class V and Sabnam passed class I. They were residing with their mother since birth. Opposite Party (father) Arshad Hasan was a tailor working in Saudi Arabia. His monthly income was Rs. 20,000/- per month. When he comes to Haridwar, then also he earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. The daughters of the opposite party are not inclined to stay with their father. They are minor. The mother of the daughters has no means of livelihood and therefore, maintenance allowance was sought from the opposite party, who is father of the applicant daughters. 2. The move of the applicant was contested by the opposite party, who filed written statement, stating therein, inter alia, that he is a labourer and has no means of his livelihood. The applicant has deliberately avoided making the daughters party to the petition. The opposite party also said that Smt. Mohsina received a sum of Rs. 45,000/- for the maintenance of her daughters. 3. The applicants, by way of objections, stated that the mother of the daughters received a sum of Rs. 45,000/- by the directions dated 05.09.2003 of the Court. No compromise could be done against the interest of the minor children. Even if there was any out of court settlement between Smt. Mohsina and Arshad Hasan, the same has no binding effect upon the applicant daughters. 4. The court below after considering the pleadings of the parties coupled with the evidence, came to the conclusion that the minor daughters are entitled to maintenance from their father (opposite party). The application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was allowed. The opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 600/- per month (Rs. 300/- each to each daughter) as maintenance allowance. The order was made effective from the date of passing of the order i.e. 12.12.2006. Aggrieved against the impugned order, present criminal revision was preferred by the opposite party Arshad (revisionist). 5. The opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 600/- per month (Rs. 300/- each to each daughter) as maintenance allowance. The order was made effective from the date of passing of the order i.e. 12.12.2006. Aggrieved against the impugned order, present criminal revision was preferred by the opposite party Arshad (revisionist). 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist drew attention of this Court towards the order dated 16.07.2004, passed by the court below in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. initiated by Smt. Mohsina against Arshad Hasan. It may be noted here that the daughters of Smt. Mohsina were not party to the proceedings, which terminated on 16.07.2004, by way of out of court settlement between the parties. In those proceedings, a compromise was entered into between the estranged husband and wife. It was agreed between them that the wife would not be entitled to any maintenance allowance from her estranged husband. Subsequently, application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the daughters of Smt. Mohsina, in which learned court below directed the opposite party to pay maintenance allowance of Rs. 600/- per month to them (daughters) from the date of passing of the order i.e. 12.12.2006. 6. The moot question is –whether the out of court settlement entered into between the wife and husband will also bind their daughters, so far as the payment of maintenance allowance to them is concerned? While learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that once the parties have entered into compromise, the said issue cannot be agitated time and again, learned counsel for respondents no. 2 and 3 submitted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a welfare legislation and their interest cannot be compromised. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist also drew attention of this Court towards the ruling of Sailendra Narayan vs State of Orrisa, AIR 1956 SC 351, to show that respondents no. 2 and 3 were barred by the plea of estoppel to raise the issue of maintenance, once it was decided between their mother and father that a lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000/- was being given to the mother of respondents no. 2 and 3 as full and final settlement of dispute between them. 2 and 3 were barred by the plea of estoppel to raise the issue of maintenance, once it was decided between their mother and father that a lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000/- was being given to the mother of respondents no. 2 and 3 as full and final settlement of dispute between them. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that a judgment by consent is intended to put a stop to litigation between the parties just as much as is a judgment which results from the decision of the Court after the matter has been fought out to the end. The compromise decree is utilised in the first place as creating an estoppel by judgment. A judgment by consent or default is as effective an estoppel between the parties as a judgment whereby the Court exercises its mind on a contested case. 8. Learned counsel for respondents no. 2 and 3, on the other hand, relied upon the principle of law laid down in Nagendrappa Natikar vs Neelamma, (2013) 2 Supreme 424 , Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) CrLJ 139 and Ram Narayan Gupta vs Smt. Laxmi Devi and another, 2007 (7) ADJ 266 . It is emphasized here that the children were not a party to the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., in which the compromise was entered into between the wife and estranged husband. It will be worthwhile to reproduce here-in-below paras 10 and 11 of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Nagendrappa Natikar’s case (supra). The same reads as under: “10. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children. Section 125 is not intended to provide for a full and final determination of the status and personal rights of parties, which is in the nature of a civil proceeding, though are governed by the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the order made under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is tentative and is subject to final determination of the rights in a civil court. 11. Section 25 of the Contract Act provides that any agreement which is opposed to public policy is not enforceable in a Court of Law and such an agreement is void, since the object is unlawful. 11. Section 25 of the Contract Act provides that any agreement which is opposed to public policy is not enforceable in a Court of Law and such an agreement is void, since the object is unlawful. Proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature and intended to provide a speedy remedy to the wife and any order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by compromise or otherwise cannot foreclose the remedy available to a wife under Section 18(2) of the Act.” 9. Although the remedy available to the daughters is not available under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, in as much as, they are governed by the Muslim Law, but, nevertheless the principle underlying, will govern their destiny. 10. In Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi’s case (supra) it was held that the wife was not debarred from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. even if the husband made lump sum payment to his wife in the proceedings of divorce by mutual agreement. 11. In Ram Narayan Gupta’s case (supra) the maintenance was granted in terms of compromise between the parties. In proceedings under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., the Family Court, after hearing the parties enhanced the maintenance allowance. It was held that the Court has got ample jurisdiction to alter amount of monthly allowance under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. 12. In the instant case, the children were not party to the earlier proceedings between the husband and wife. The wife, later on, claimed maintenance allowance for her daughters against the opposite party, which was allowed by the learned court below. There appears to be no illegality in the judgment rendered by the learned Judge, Family Court. It is held that if the husband and wife entered into an out of court settlement between them, the same will not estop the daughters from claiming maintenance allowance from their father. It is the fundamental principle of law that no compromise can take place, which is adverse to the interest of a minor. Even if a compromise has taken place for and on behalf of minor daughters, the same carries no meaning, if the compromise is prejudicial to their interest. In other words, the minor daughters are entitled to claim maintenance from their father, on their own right. 13. There is thus no infirmity and illegality in the impugned order. Even if a compromise has taken place for and on behalf of minor daughters, the same carries no meaning, if the compromise is prejudicial to their interest. In other words, the minor daughters are entitled to claim maintenance from their father, on their own right. 13. There is thus no infirmity and illegality in the impugned order. The criminal revision filed on behalf of opposite party / revisionist is devoid of merit and the same is therefore dismissed.