JUDGMENT G.B. Singh, J. - This is criminal Revision against the order dated 4.7.1983 passed by the 8th Additional Munsif Magistrate, Faizabad ordering for realisation of the maintenance allowance under Section 128 Cr.P.C. 2. Smt. Sundari Devi, opposite party No. 1 is wife of Mahadeo, revisionist. Smt. Sundari Devi moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance against Mahadeo, revisionist. It was contested by the revisionist on various grounds. After recording evidence of the parties the learned Munsif-Magistrate awarded maintenance by his order dated 12.11.1981 to Smt. Sundari Devi for herself and her two minor children at the rate of Rs. 175.00 per mensum. Against that order Mahadeo filed revision which was dismissed vide order dated 23.11.1982. After the order of the learned Munsif -Magistrate Smt. Sundari Devi moved an application dated 22.12.1981 under Section 128 for enforcement of the order of maintenance. Since revision had been filed proceedings for enforcement of the order of maintenance were postponed. After dismissal of the revision Mahadeo Revisionist filed objection petition to the application dated 22.12.1981 on 2.5.1983. He pleaded inter she that Smt. Sundari Devi has remarried with one Ram Tej and is living with him as his wife. She is, therefore, not entitled to any maintenance. He further pleaded that he has paid Rs. 1500.00 in cash and given clothes worth Rs. 500.00 towards maintenance and on this ground also she is not entitled to enforcement of the order. The change in pecuniary circumstances of the revisionist was also pleaded by him. At the foot of this objection petition he prayed that the objector may be given an opportunity to lead evidence and after evidence the application of Smt. Sundari Devi for enforcement of order of maintenance may be rejected. The learned Munsif Magistrate rejected the objection petition of the revisionist holding that he has not paid any amount to Smt. Sundari Devi and the second marriage with Ram Tej has not been proved. Against this order the present revision has been filed. 3. The record of the lower court was summoned and perused. The parties counsel were also heard at length. 4. Section 128 Cr.P.C. shows that the Magistrate can enforce the order of maintenance if he feels satisfied for non-payment of the allowance due. The satisfaction about non-payment can be recorded after the evidence to be led in the case. 3. The record of the lower court was summoned and perused. The parties counsel were also heard at length. 4. Section 128 Cr.P.C. shows that the Magistrate can enforce the order of maintenance if he feels satisfied for non-payment of the allowance due. The satisfaction about non-payment can be recorded after the evidence to be led in the case. Section 127 Cr.P.C. contains provision to the effect that on proof of a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving under Section 125 a monthly allowance the Magistrate may make such alteration in the allowance as he thinks fit. The word "proof" used in the Section indicates that if such a plea is raised it can be established on the basis of the proof furnished by the parties. Section 125 (5) lays down that on proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this Section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, the Magistrate shall cancel the order. The case of second marriage and living with second husband and discharging marital obligations with the second husband pleaded in the petition indicate that the objector raised the plea of adultery though he did not use specifically expression "living in adultery" in the objection, petition, from the plea raised it transpires that he was challenging the enforcement of the maintenance order and praying for cancellation of it. The word "proof" used in this sub-section (5) also reveals that it could be substantiated by the evidence to be led by the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that he was not given an opportunity to lead evidence to substantiate his allegation made in the objection petition inspite of specific prayer in this regard made therein. The order sheet does not show that any opportunity was given to the parties to lead evidence in support of the points raised in the objection petition. The order of the learned Munsif-Magistrate on the other hand indicates that he decided the objection without recording any evidence on the aforesaid points. It has been observed above that aforesaid pleas could not be decided without evidence. It is not less significant to note that the revisionist filed a copy of an extract from Kutumb Register to show that Smt. Sundari Devi is recorded as wife of Ram Tej. It has been observed above that aforesaid pleas could not be decided without evidence. It is not less significant to note that the revisionist filed a copy of an extract from Kutumb Register to show that Smt. Sundari Devi is recorded as wife of Ram Tej. Learned Munsif-Magistrate discarded it observing that there is no evidence in support of it. Then he had not given opportunity to lead evidence. The reasoning assigned for rejecting it cannot be said to be justified. 6. It is, therefore, clear that the learned Munsif Magistrate rejected the objection petition of the revisionist without affording him an opportunity to lead evidence to substantiate his allegations and thus the order passed by him deserves interference in revision. 7. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the order dated 4.7.87 is set aside. The case is remanded to the court below with the direction that it shall decide without any delay the objection petitions of the revisionist afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence before him. The stay order dated 14.7.1983 is vacated.