JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - In this application filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code') the petitioner who is the wife of the opposite party, has challenged the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Athmallik in Criminal Misc. Case No. 79 of 1987, u/s 127 of the Code, reducing the amount of maintenance from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 25/-. 2. The gist of the facts relevant for the present proceeding may be stated thus : On the application filed by the petitioner u/s 125 of the Code (Criminal Misc. Case No. 53 of 1982/T.R. No. 60/83) the learned S.D.J.M. passed the order directing the opposite party to pay the petitioner maintenance at Rs. 250/- per month. The said order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 30 of 1985. The Learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order and rejected the revision petition filed by the opposite party. His attempt to challenge the order before this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 447 of 1986 filed u/s 482 of the Code proved futile and the case was dismissed in limine at the admission stage on 12-12-1986. It is relevant to note here that in the application it was stated that subsequent to the order passed u/s 125 of the Code, the wife got employment as a teacher in Anganwadi Primery School and she is drawing salary of Rs. 225/- per month. Thereafter the application giving rise to the present proceeding was filed by the opposite party u/s 127(1) of the Code with the prayer to modify the order directing payment of maintenance taking into account the subsequent employment of the wife and her income from such employment. Considering the said application, the learned Magistrate reduced the quantum of maintenance to Rs. 25/-per month after adjusting her monthly salary of Rs. 225/-. Hence, this revision petition by the wife. 3. On perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned Magistrate concentrated his attention on the question whether there was any truth in the allegation regarding the employment of the wife and answered it in affirmative. Thereafter he allowed the application with the following observation : "The Court is competent enough to cancel or alter the orders of maintenance in a changed circumstance. Here in this case, it is well proved that the opposite party earns Rs. Thereafter he allowed the application with the following observation : "The Court is competent enough to cancel or alter the orders of maintenance in a changed circumstance. Here in this case, it is well proved that the opposite party earns Rs. 225/- per month as an Anganwadi servant. Hence it is ordered......" ' From the extract of the order quoted above, it is manifest that the learned Magistrate was under the impression that once a change in the circumstance is established any income earned by the wife has got to be deducted from the amount directed to be paid as maintenance. In all probability under such impression he did not feel the necessity to consider the other aspects of the case like, adequacy of the amount for proper maintenance of the wife, whether the reduction of the amount was at all warranted considering the rise in cost of living in the meanwhile and etc. 4. Sub-section (1) of Section 127 of the Code under the provisions whereof the application was filed by the opposite party provides that on proof of a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving u/s 125 a monthly allowance, or ordered under the same section to pay a monthly allowance to his wife, the Magistrate may make such alteration in the allowance as he thinks fit : Provided that if he increases the allowance, the monthly rate of five hundred rupees on the whole shall not be exceeded. The provision does not lay down the criteria to be taken into account while considering the application u/s 127 of the Code and the ground on which reduction or enhancement of the amount may be made. A change in the circumstance of any person appears to be the sine qua non for vesting power in the Magistrate to deal with the matter regarding alteration of quantum of maintenance. In these circumstances, in my view, it will be reasonable to read Sections 125 and 127 of the Code together since both the sections deal with the same subject matter and one is an off shoot from the other. This position becomes particularly clear since the Magistrate is vested with power both to enhance and reduce the quantum of maintenance as evident from the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 127 of the Code. This position becomes particularly clear since the Magistrate is vested with power both to enhance and reduce the quantum of maintenance as evident from the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 127 of the Code. It is therefore necessary that in order to deal with the application filed u/s 127(1) for modification of the order of maintenance, the Magistrate should consider the matter in the light of the criteria which usually weigh with the Court in the proceeding u/s 125. The position is well settled by catena of decisions that in the proceeding u/s 125, the Magistrate is to considered the reasonable requirement of the wife for her proper maintenance considering the standard of living which she was enjoying/would have enjoyed in the house of her husband, the reasonable amount required for her separate maintenance considering the prevailing cost of living, price of essential commodities, etc. and also the income of the husband and income, if any, of the wife. Unless this position is accepted it will lead to a mechanical disposal of the application filed u/s 127 simply on the ground that there has been a change in the circumstance subsequent to passing of order u/s 125. Tested on the principles discussed in the foregoing paragraphs it is patent that the impugned order does not stand scrutiny. The learned Magistrate has deducted the amount of the monthly salary of the wife from the amount of maintenance merely on the finding that her subsequent employment has brought about a change in the circumstances without considering the other relevant matters. It is stated at the Bar that the wife has filed an application u/s 127(1) for enhancement of quantum of maintenance and the said application has not yet been disposed of. 5. On the foregoing analysis and discussion the application is allowed, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside and he is directed to enquire into the matter afresh in the light of the observation made in the judgment and dispose of the application filed u/s 127, Cr.P.C. in accordance with law. He will afford responsible opportunity to both the parties to place their case before him. If an application has been filed by the wife for enhancement of the amount of maintenance the same shall be considered along with the petition filed by the husband. Final Result : Allowed