1» no.157 ..f rsr*sj Ghn-nshyaia S/o Chliaganlai Agrawal, aged about 48 years, R/o Raaisag?a~ Para, Raipiu-, Tahsi! aad District Raipur (C.G.) KaiTiia Bai W/o Ghanshyain Agrawal, aged about 47 years, R/o Sattiewara, Talisil - Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Residitig at. C/ o Shri ShyaTn Saarnia, Opposite K.K. Singhal, B/4 Nawneet Daiiy, Gurunanak Market Rain Nagar, Supela, Bhiiai District Dur{ (C. Petition under Section 483 of Cr.P.C. Sbri. Sachin Siugh Rajpilt, Counsei for the petitioner. None for fhe respondent. ,20071 HeaiTi. on adsiiission. This petition is directed agaiiist. the order flated 14.03.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No. 10/2007 'hy t.he Additioual Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon. The aforesaid revisiou was filed agailist tlie orrler dated 1 T.1 2.2006 passed in Misc. Crimmal Case No. 79/2006 by the Additioiial ChiefJudicial Magistrate, K'iiairagai'h, whereliy the said Coi.irt had rejected a preiiD'sinaiy objection raised by the petitioner regarding temtorial jiu-isdictiou. unt-ler 127 of Cr.P.C. for alteration of tlie aroount of nianthly iiiauitenaiice awardert to the respondent. The brief facts are ttiat in a. proceeding iinder Section 125 Cr.P.C., tlie icspoiident was awaried iiiont.bly ihaintenance of Rs.1,100/- on 18.06.2004 by the Coiirt of Additiona^ Cbief.Jin-iicia! MagistTate. After the iapse of ahpiit more than 8 years,on Cr. M.P. No. 15Z/290' :iS!" L 1.8.2006, the respondent wife fi1ed an application for alteration of the inaintenaiice amount befbre t.he sanie CoTirt imder Sectiou 127 Cr.P.C. showing her to be the resident ofVitlage Salliewara, Tahsii Chbuikhadan, District Rajriandgaon, which arlmittedty coines witbiu the tei-ritorial jurisdictiou of the said Coiirt. On such appUcatioD. being filed, the petitioner raised an onjection tliat now the respondent is not the reaident under thp temtorialjurisi'iiction of the said Court, therefore, this application filed nnder Section 127 Cr.P.C. would not be maintainaoie. The tri.ql Court rcjecterl this objectipn ol'ipemDg that accoiTling to the contents of t.he application, lEspondent was issiding ivitliin the. tenitorial jurisdic^ion^ofthe said Court anri siicb ohjection ca.nnot.be decided threshold. The saiTie viewixgi taken hv ttie revisional Court. I have goue thmiigh the orier passed liy tJ-ie revisional Court. Admittedly, as stated by leanied counsel fbr flie petitioner, earlier the oi-der was passed hv tj'ie Ad.ditional Chief Judicia! MaRisti-ate, Kliairagarh 011 18.6.2004 and thereafter, t.he I'espondent. filed aii applicatioij fi-ir alterEi.tion of flie aniou.nt in the saine Court showing aer . saiiie address, which was ineatiQ-ned ui ffae orighial petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Sn this view of e matter, there appears to be no illegality in the ordei-s pasaed by tae two Coi.irts betow, when the pF-tition was lield to be inaintainable on the arldress shown by the respoudent and tJie point oftemtorialjurisdictionwas ovemjted by them. I do iiot find a.ny reason to i-aterfere witli fl-it- ordera passed by the Coui'ts below. T1ie petition has no merits and the same is dismissed. at flie iiiotioa staee itself. Sunil Kumar Sinha 4 Judge vatti