JUDGMENT : V.V. Bedakar, J. The petitioner has filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 790 of 1978 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baroda, for setting aside the order passed by the Criminal Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) directing the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs. 100/- per month to the opponent on the ground that he has paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- lump-sum. During the pendency of the suit, it was known by the petitioner that the opponent had re-married with out Chimangir Somgir Gosai. Therefore, by application Ex. 57, the petitioner requested the Court to implead that Chimangir as defendant No. 2 in the suit and make necessary changes in the plaint. This was one request. Another request made was to permit amendment of the plaint, contending that as defendant No. 1 married defendant No. 2 (Chimangir) on 19-4-1982, defendant No. 1 (present opponent) was not entitled to get any maintenance. This is proposed by para 3-A. But in this, there is mention of defendant No. 2, meaning thereby, after Chimangir is added. This application was rejected by the learned trial Judge and therefore, the revision. 2. In so far as the addition of Chimangir as defendant No. 2 in the suit is concerned, I think, the petitioner has no case. The cause of action was only against the opponent-wife who obtained the order of maintenance of Rs. 100/- per month from the Criminal Court. In that cause of action Chimangir does not figure at all. Therefore, in that suit Chimangir is neither a necessary nor a proper party. In view of this, the said request was rightly rejected. 3. So far as request for amendment pertaining to subsequent event on the strength of re-marriage of the opponent (defendant in the suit) is concerned, the learned trial Judge observed that if the case of the petitioner is that there is re-marriage by the opponent, then the petitioner may approach the Criminal Court under Section 127 (3) of the Code, but this amendment cannot be granted. 4. I fail to understand this reasoning of the learned trial Judge. 4. I fail to understand this reasoning of the learned trial Judge. The decision of the Civil Court will be final and also would have binding nature on the order passed by the Criminal Court if the Civil Court set aside the order on appreciation of facts and evidence led before it. The decision of a Civil Court, whether there is re-marriage of the opponent-defendant, would be relevant even in a Criminal Court. Therefore, that scope would be available to the petitioner in case the Civil Court comes to the conclusion that re-marriage is proved. Therefore, it was not proper for the learned trial Judge to reject this request of the petitioner for amendment. 5. In view of this, the revision petition is partly allowed. The petition, so far as the request of adding Chiniangir as defendant No. 2 in the suit, is dismissed, and it is held that request is rightly rejected by the learned trial Judge. The petition, so far as the request for amendment on the factum of re-marriage of the opponent-defendant is concerned, is allowed. Without mentioning defendant No. 2, the trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner-plaintiff to carry out the amendment so far as that aspect is concerned. Rule is modified to shat extent with no order as to costs. Revision Petition partly allowed.