1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Hattam Ali Vs. Smt. Jubeda alias Beda S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No.1626/2007 DATE OF ORDER :: March 28, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Niranjan Singh, for the petitioner. Mr.Vijay Jain, for respondent. BY THE COURT: This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dt. 26.9.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Hanumangarh (for short `the revisional court' hereinafter) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dt. 20.5.2006 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar (for short `the trial court' hereinafter) was dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone 2 through the orders passed by both the courts below as also the record of the trial court. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent Smt. Jubeda alias Beda filed a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. being Cr.Case No.70/94 before the trial court, which came to be decided by order dt. 21.5.1997 granting monthly allowance of maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per month for the period from 3.8.94 to 28.6.97. That order has not been challenged by respondent and has attained finality. Thereafter a fresh application under section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed before the trial court on 11.5.2005 being Cr.Case No.46/2005 and the trial court allowed the application, though it was brought to the notice of the trial court by filing a certified copy of the order dt. 21.5.1997 granting monthly allowance of maintenance in favour of the respondent and it is contended that if at all the respondent dissatifies with the quantum of maintenance granted to her by order dt. 21.5.1997, she can file an application under section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement/modification of maintenance granted and, therefore, according to the learned counsel, both the courts below erred in entertaining the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. Sub-section (1) of Section 127 Cr.P.C. provides that: 3 127. Alteration in allowances.--[(1) On proof of a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving, under section 125 a monthly allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance, or ordered under the same section to pay a monthly allowance for the maintenance, or interim maintenance, to his wife, child, father or mother, as the case may be, the Magistrate may make such alteration, as he thinks fit, in the allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance, as the case may be.] In this view of the matter, it was always open for the respondent to seek modification/enhancement of monthly allowance granted to her but not in a fresh application for maintenance or to challenge the order dt. 21.5.1997 if feels dissatisfied therewith. In the circumstances, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. For the reasons stated, orders impugned passed by the trial court dt. 20.5.2006 and affirmed by the revisional court dt. 26.9.2007 are set aside. Petition is accordingly allowed. [H.R.PANWAR],J. m.asif/- 4 S.B.Cr.Misc. Stay Petition No.1145/2007 In S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.1626/2007 (Hattam Ali Vs. Smt. Jubeda alias Beda) Date of order : March 28, 2008 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr.Niranjan Singh, for the petitioner. Mr.Vijay Jain, for respondent. Since the main petition has itself been allowed. Stay petition stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR),J. m.asif/-