1. The petitioner was informed by express post card on 8th July 1971, that the case shall be heard on 14th July 1971. He has not turned up. [1] observed by the District Magistrate that the Magistrate should have better dismissed the application under section 488, Cr. P. C. and left the parties to enforce the compromise in the civil Court. A compromise may be a bar to an application under section 489, Cr. P. C., but there is nothing in law to prevent a Magistrate to enforce his order for the payment of maintenance-even if the parties have arrived at a compromise. Another distinguishing feature in this case is that the maintenance was granted to the minor children and the learned Magistrate was justified in enforcing the compromise. The recommendation is, therefore, rejected and the case is sent back for necessary action.
2. Recommendation rejected.