JUDGMENT : SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam and Mr. Z. Hussain, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023 is being filed and preferred by the abovenamed petitioner herein seeking quashing of the Misc. Case No. 249/2021 filed u/s 125 CrPC by the respondent No. 2 seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- from the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner in the year 1985 was married to one Ms. Esquash Begum as per Muslim shariat law and out of the wedlock two children were born, one girl and one boy. However, due to various reasons the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 was dissolved by religious rituals in the year 2000 and after the dissolution of the marriage the respondent No. 2 had filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC in the year 2002 seeking maintenance from the petitioner. The said petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 322/2002 before the learned Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Dhubri and vide Order dated 31.05.2003, the learned SDJM, Dhubri passed an order of granting interim maintenance of Rs. 500/- to the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the said maintenance case was closed in the year 2006 on compromise that the petitioner would provide final maintenance amount of Rs. 600/- pm. 4. After the Misc. Case No. 322/2002 was closed before the learned Court of SDJM, Dhubri, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 arrived at a mutual settlement between them and based on the terms and conditions of the settlement, an affidavit was executed on 02.03.2009 before the then Notory Public, Hatsingimari, Dhubri. 5. The petitioner as per the terms of the Settlement had given the respondent No. 2 a land measuring 1K covered by Patta No. 271(Old)/472(New) and Dag No. 197/426 at Revenue Village Jhowdanga Part-III, under Mankachar Revenue Circle, Dhubri, Assam. The petitioner also handed over a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the respondent No. 2 for construction of the dwelling house over the said plot of land as agreed upon in the settlement affidavit dated 02.03.2009. The petitioner also handed over a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the respondent No. 2 for construction of the dwelling house over the said plot of land as agreed upon in the settlement affidavit dated 02.03.2009. Furthermore, the petitioner was also providing the education and livelihood of his daughter and son from the respondent No. 2 and was providing a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for their expenses. The petitioner never provided the said Rs. 5000/- as maintenance to the respondent No. 2 but for the kids. However, the petitioner till date has been providing the said amount of Rs. 5000/- per month to the respondent No. 2 even though there is no order from the learned Court below regarding payment of the said amount as maintenance, the learned Court below had only continued the payment of Rs. 5000/- to the respondent No. 2. The petitioner on its own has been providing the said amount of Rs. 5000/- on humanitarian ground. 6. Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present proceedings initiated under Section 125 CrPC by Misc. Case No. 249/2021 is wholly illegal in view of the fact that the earlier petition being Misc. Case No. 322/2002 under Section 125 CrPC before the Court of the learned SDJM, Dhubri had already been settled between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 by way of mutual compromise recorded in a notarized Settlement Deed dated 02.03.2009 and the respondent No. 2 is therefore, legally barred from initiating a de novo Section 125 CrPC proceeding afresh between the same parties on the same facts and circumstances. 7. Per contra, Mr. Z. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that although as per the Deed of Agreement, the land was supposed to be transferred in the name of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner has not taken any steps towards effecting the same and therefore, the respondent No. 2 cannot be prevented or estopped from approaching the Court seeking maintenance. Moreover, there is no order passed by the Court recording the closure of the earlier maintenance proceedings in as much as, due to transfer of jurisdiction and subsequent transfer of case records, the concerned record has been reported as missing by the concerned Court’s staff and therefore, there is no order in existence recording that the matter has been mutually settled. 8. 8. In reply, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that regardless of whether a specific order closing the earlier proceeding is in existence or not, it remains an admitted fact that the respondent No. 2 had initiated a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC against the present petitioner and therein, an order for payment of a certain amount of maintenance had been made and therefore, a de novo proceeding under Section 125 CrPC is barred. However, it is fairly submitted by learned Senior Counsel that it is open for the respondent No. 2 to approach the appropriate forum by way of an application under Section 127 CrPC seeking enhancement. 9. Having regard to the submissions made above by the respective learned counsels, I am of the view that this petition can be disposed of with a direction that the present proceedings under Section 125 CrPC pending before the learned SDJM, Dhubri may be treated as a proceeding under Section 127 CrPC, in as much as, there is no substantial difference between the two proceedings as far as the nature of the evidence that is required to be led concerning the quantum of maintenance that the party seeking maintenance may be entitled too. 10. In the view of this Court, it would be expedient to do so instead of closing the present proceedings and leaving it to the respondent No. 2 to initiate fresh proceedings as the evidence of one witness has already been recorded and certain orders with regard to interim maintenance has also been passed by the learned Trial Court. 11. In case, in view of the conversion of the proceedings, additional evidence is desired to be adduced, the concerned party may file appropriate application which shall be considered on its own merits by the learned Trial Court. Similarly, if any additional facts by way of pleadings are required to be brought on record, the same may also be considered by the learned Trial Court upon any application in this regard being made. 12. With the above observation, the instant criminal petition stands closed and disposed of.