THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1425 and 1427 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Since the petitioner in both the petitions and subject matter are one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. These two criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.Nos.24 and 31 of 2005, whereby he allowed the revisions filed by the respondent herein, who is the husband of the petitioner. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner herein filed M.C.No.8 of 1994 in which the learned trial Judge ordered maintenance to her at Rs.500/-. Subsequently, in the year 2003 the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.5597 of 2003 for enhancement of the maintenance from Rs.500/- to Rs.10,000/-. The learned Magistrate by allowing the said petition enhanced the maintenance from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/-. Against the said order, the petitioner as well as the first respondent herein preferred revisions before the District and Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge by a common order dated 04.12.2007 set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and reduced the maintenance to Rs.500/-. Aggrieved over the same, petitioner preferred these criminal petitions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Sessions Judge erroneously, without looking into the amendments made in Section 125 Cr.P.C. relied on the earlier provisions and allowed the revision filed by the respondent herein and he observed in the order as follows: “The lower Court enhanced the monthly maintenance amount of Rs.500/- already awarded in M.C.8/94 TO Rs.5,000/- by enhancing Rs.4,500/- per month. As seen from 127 Cr.P.C., “provided that if he increases the allowance, the monthly rate of Rs.500/- on the whole shall not be exceeded”. But the lower court ignoring this provision of law enhanced the maintenance amount at a time more than Rs.500/- on the whole maintenance amount already awarded. So, I am under the considered opinion, the monthly rate of Rs.500/- on the whole shall not be exceeded according to the above provision of law.” 5. The respondent’s counsel absent. Respondent seeks for an adjournment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitions are preferred by the petitioner only on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in allowing the application basing on the provision, which is already been repelled without taking into consideration the amended provision. 6. This Court perused the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the learned Sessions Judge has erroneously relied on the repelled provision under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on the said ground is not sustainable in law. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 7. In any event, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the first respondent herein is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) from the month of April 2011. 8. With the above observation, the Criminal Petitions are disposed of. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed along with the criminal petitions shall stand closed. ________________ RAJA ELANGO, J. 3rd March 2011, Rns.