Order.- Thiagaraja Pillai, the husband, is the petitioner before me. In M.C. No.85 of 1945 on the file of the Joint Magistrate, Chandragiri, he was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.10 per month to his wife Ammanamma. In 1946, the petitioner filed M.C. No.84 of 1946 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandragiri, under section 489, Criminal Procedure Code, for a reduction of the maintenance that had been awarded to the respondent the previous year. By an order made on 15th January, 1947, the learned Magistrate reduced the amount to Rs.8. In 1954 Ammanamma filed an application under section 489, Criminal Procedure Code, before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Tirupati at Chandragiri, praying that the amount of Rs.8 awarded to her in M.C. No.84 of 1946 be increased. The learned Magistrate, after a consideration of all the materials placed before him, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.14 per month as maintenance to his wife. He has now come up with this petition to revise the order of the Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised a point of law which may be thus explained. Under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, certain classes of Magistrates are empowered to award maintenance to the wife or child of a person who, having sufficient means, neglects or refuses without just cause to maintain them. Section 489(1), Criminal Procedure Code, enacts: “On proof of a change in the circumstance of any person receiving under section 488 a monthly allowance, or ordered under the same section to pay a monthly allowance to his wife or child, the Magistrate may make such alteration in the allowance as he thinks fit.” Now, if the allowance fixed under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, is at any time altered, then the new rate of allowance becomes a rate fixed under section 489(1), Criminal Procedure Code and cease to be one under section 488. Therefore it would not be competent to the Magistrate to alter the rate of maintenance fixed. In other words a Magistrate has got power to alter the rate of maintenance only on one occasion; and once that power is exercised, it exhausts itself and cannot be exercised again. I am unable to agree with this reading of sections 488 and 489, Criminal Procedure Code. In other words a Magistrate has got power to alter the rate of maintenance only on one occasion; and once that power is exercised, it exhausts itself and cannot be exercised again. I am unable to agree with this reading of sections 488 and 489, Criminal Procedure Code. In my view the power conferred by section 489(1) can be exercised by the Magistrate as often as occasion may require or justify. If for instance a husband is drawing a salary of Rs.100 per month and the Magistrate directs maintenance at the rate of Rs.20 he can, if it is shown that the salary of the husband has subsequently increased to Rs.200 increase the allowance to a suitable figure. If the income of the husband again rises to say Rs.500 it would be open to the Magistrate again to further raise the amount awarded as maintenance, subject of course to the overall ceiling of Rs.100 per month. Contrawise if maintenance has been fixed at Rs.100 and subsequently the financial position of the husband deteriorates, it will be open to the Magistrate on the application of the husband to reduce the amount he was previously required to pay as maintenance. It does not appear to me to be correct to say that once the power to alter the allowance is exercised it exhausts itself; the Court has always power to adjust the allowance to the resources of the husband or the father. Learned counsel next contended that taking into account all the relevant facts of the case the learned Magistrate was not justified in fixing the figure at Rs.14. Here too I am unable to agree. In fixing this figure, the learned Magistrate has taken stock of every important circumstance. He found that the plea of the petitioner that he was sending Rs.10 a month to his parents was not substantiated. He has taken into account the circumstance that the petitioner admitted that the burden of maintaining his brothers and sisters no longer lay on him. He also found that the plea of the petitioner that he has incurred a debt of Rs.2,000 for performing their marriages was also not made out. It is strongly contended that the petitioner has another wife and six children by her. The legal status of this woman is apparently a matter of dispute. He also found that the plea of the petitioner that he has incurred a debt of Rs.2,000 for performing their marriages was also not made out. It is strongly contended that the petitioner has another wife and six children by her. The legal status of this woman is apparently a matter of dispute. The learned Magistrate has also taken into account the circumstance that all the children of this woman are not wholly dependent upon the petitioner. He has considered every material circumstance appearing in the evidence and I see no justification for interfering with the order he has made. The petition is dismissed. K.S. ----- Petition dismissed.