Maintenance proceeding restoration under Section 125 CrPC is valid despite Section 362 where settlement terms are breached.

Section 362 CrPC does not bar revival of a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 CrPC where a settlement was not honoured, because Section 125 proceedings are continuing in nature and the statute itself permits cancellation or variation under Sections 125(5) and 127. The SC applied a purposive interpretation of the maintenance scheme as a social justice measure and held that inherent powers cannot be used to defeat an express statutory framework. On that basis, restoring the maintenance proceeding was not an impermissible review or alteration of the final order, and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order disposing of a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be set aside or restored notwithstanding Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when the settlement terms were not honoured.

Analysis: Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars alteration or review of a signed judgment or final order, but that embargo operates subject to the Code and other law. Proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are of a continuing nature and the statute itself expressly contemplates cancellation or variation through Section 125(5) and Section 127. The maintenance provision is a social justice measure requiring purposive interpretation, and the Court applied the principle that inherent powers cannot be used to defeat an express statutory scheme. Once the settlement was not performed, revival of the maintenance proceeding did not amount to an impermissible review barred by Section 362.

Conclusion: The restoration of the maintenance proceeding was valid and not hit by Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; the challenge failed.

---