1. This is a reference made by the learned District Magistrate of Howrah, recommending that certain orders purported to have been made under Section 488, Criminal P.C. be set aside for reasons stated by the learned Magistrate. The facts of the case leading up to the reference to this Court, have been placed before me by the learned advocates for the parties, and the orders which in the learned District Magistrate's opinion require revision by this Court have been commented upon in detail.
2. On a very careful consideration of the materials placed before me, I am unable to agree with the learned District Magistrate that the original order passed by Mr. Fell, on 29th January 1932, fixing the maintenance allowance at Rs. 15 in pursuance of a settlement arrived at by the parties concerned, the husband and the wife, should be interfered with, in any way. The order was no doubt based on a compromise, but it could not on that account be held to be illegal. The order as made by Mr. Fell was subsequently given effect to by the husband against whom the order for maintenance was made. The parties it appears have for sometime LOW been litigating in the civil Courts, over a matter arising out of a clause contained in the compromise by which the amount of maintenance allowance was fixed; but the wife if she chooses to get the benefit of the order passed in her favour so far as the maintenance payable by the husband was concerned, must abide by the terms of the settlement by which the maintenance allowance was fixed and given effect to by Mr. Fell on 29th January 1932, by his order made under Section 488, Criminal P.C.
3. The order of 29th January 1932, must be treated as the final order binding the parties, and the subsequent orders to which reference has been made by the learned District Magistrate in his letter of reference to this Court, appear to be in the nature of consequential orders, which must be allowed to stand. It must be distinctly understood that the wife would not be entitled to any amount in excess of the amount of Rs. 15 mentioned in the order of Mr. Fell, based upon a compromise. In the above view of the case regard being specially had to the position taken up by the learned advocate for the wife, Nirmala Bala Debi, that his client would not lay any claim to the premises No. 44 Chatterjipara Road, North Bantra, that she would not be entitled to the rents collected from tenants on the said premises, and that her maintenance allowance from her husband is limited to Rs. 15 as fixed by compromise, the reference is rejected. The orders for the revision and cancellation of which the reference was made are allowed to stand.