JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This is a revision petition against the order passed by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhunjhunu in a petition under Section 127 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The non-petitioner Smt. Bimla Devi wife of the petitioner Mahabir Prasad moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C, for the grant of maintenance. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 26th October, 1976 allowed a sum of Rs. 125/- per month by way of maintenance to her and her daughter. Thereafter, non-petitioner submitted the present application under Section 127 for alternation in the allowances. The petitioner opposed the aforesaid application. The learned Magistrate by his impugned order dated 3rd December, 1980 increased the allowances to Rs. 300/-per month from the date of the application. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the petitioner Mahabir Prasad has filed the present revision. 3. Mr. Tibrewal, learned counsel for the petitioner first contended that there were no change in the circumstances and as such no order for alteration in the allowances could have been made under Section 127. It is contended that so far as the income of the petitioner is concerned that had already been taken into consideration by the Magistrate while passing the earlier order on 26-10-76. I am not impressed with the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The non-petitioner has led evidence of five witnesses including herself to show that the petitioner had gone to Bahrein and had served there on a salary of Rs. 5,000/-. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has stated that the amount which the petitioner was paid in Arab Countries was equivalent to Rs. 850/- of the Indian Coin. However the petitioner has not led any, evidence except his solitary statement to show what was the actual salary given to him while employed in Arab Countries. Be that as it may, learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the fact that after the passing of the order dated 26-10-76 there is abundant increase in the cost price of all the commodities and keeping that fact in view he considered it proper to increase the amount from Rs. 125/- to Rs 300/-. The petitioner is admittedly living in Bombay and non-petitioner who is living with his daughter at Jhunjhunu cannot meet her expenses in a meagre amount of Rs. 125/-per month. 125/- to Rs 300/-. The petitioner is admittedly living in Bombay and non-petitioner who is living with his daughter at Jhunjhunu cannot meet her expenses in a meagre amount of Rs. 125/-per month. In these circumstances the amount of Rs. 300/- fixed by the learned Magistrate in view of this change in the circumstances does not call for any interference. 4. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no order for alteration in allowance could have been made by the learned Magistrate from the date of the application and it could have only be made from the date of the order. Reliance in this regard is placed on J. H. Amroon v. Miss. R. Sassor (A I.R. 1949 Case. 584 ). In the above case the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court while taking into consideration the provisions of Section 489 Criminal Procedure Code or, 1898 had held that in a case upon an application made in that behalf, the Magistrate has power to order increase in the allowance paid to the applicant, but he has no power to order the increased allowance to be paid with effect from the dates of the application but only from the date of the order increasing the allowance. The learned Judge distinguished the cases reported in A.I.R. 1926 Bombay 419, (Hira Lal Valavdas v. Bai Amba ) and A.I.R. 1935 Lahore 24, (Mst. Lilawant v. Madan Gopal ) taking a contrary view. 5. It is pertinent to note that in the year 1883 Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code contained the provisions that "such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order." There is no such provision restricting the power of the Court under Section 127 to the effect that such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order. The plain reading of Section 127 lays down that on proved change in the circumstances of any person, receiving under Section 125 monthly allowance, or, order under the same section to pay a monthly allowance to his wife, child, father, mother as the case may be, the Magistrate may make such alteration in the allowance as he thinks fit. Thus, there is no restriction on the power of the Court to pass an order increasing the allowance from the date of the application. Thus, there is no restriction on the power of the Court to pass an order increasing the allowance from the date of the application. Even otherwise, if the time taken in the decision of the application may some time be one year or two years, it cannot be the intention of the legislature that in every case the order could only be passed increasing the amount only from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. In this section the change in the circumstances are to be proved of the person, who is receiving amount of allowance under Section 125 and not that of the person who has to pay this allowance. There can be no denial of the fact that the cost price of essential commodities has increased to a great extent within a period of 4 years and a Court can take judicial notice of change in the circumstances for increasing the amount awarded to the non-petitioner.Thus, I find no force in this revision and it is dismissed, Sd/- N.M. Kasliwal, J. *******