A. K. CHATTERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THESE two revisional applications heard together arise in the circumstances as under. ( 2 ) SMT. Aparajita Ghosh, petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1242 of 1987 and opposite party in the other case made an application before a competent Magistrate under section 125, Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance against her husband Padmanava Ghosh, who is the opposite party in the said Revision No. 1242 of 1987 and the petitioner in the other. The application under section 125, Cr. P. C. was disposed of on the 4th September 1973, whereby the learned Magistrate directed the husband to pay sum of Rs. 80/- per month to the wife on account of maintenance. Subsequently the husband made an application under section 127 (1) Cr. P. C. for cancellation of the order on the ground that his wife has since n employed as a teacher of a school on a decent salary and she was no longer in need of any maintenance from him. This application was sought to be resisted by the wife on the ground that it was not legally sustainable. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate on consideration of evidence adduced before him has found that the wife was earning a sum of Rs. 900/- per month after all deductions and that she was able to maintain herself on such income. However, the learned Magistrate took the view that there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which enabled him to altogether cancel the order for payment of maintenance in such circumstance and accordingly directed the husband to make payment of a token maintenance allowance of Rs. 10/- per month from the date of the order. Both the husband and the wife have come up in revision against this order, the former contending that the order for maintenance should have been cancelled in its entirety and the letter contending that the application under section 127 (1) Cr. P. C. should have been rejected. ( 4 ) THE revisional application filed by the wife hardly makes out any ground. It has been stated therein that the provision of section 127 (1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, only empowered the court to use its discretionary power as regards alteration, cautiously and judiciously and the service of the wife as a teacher could not be a ground for passing the impugned order. It has been stated therein that the provision of section 127 (1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, only empowered the court to use its discretionary power as regards alteration, cautiously and judiciously and the service of the wife as a teacher could not be a ground for passing the impugned order. Employment of the wife subsequent to the order for payment of maintenance is certainly a change in the circumstance as contemplated by section 127 (1), Code of Criminal Procedure and it cannot be said that the court below did not act cautiously or judiciously in applying the provisions of the said section. ( 5 ) SHORT point which, therefore, arises for determination is whether under section 127 (1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is open to a Magistrate to wholly cancel an order for patent of maintenance on proof of an appropriate change in the circumstance of the person receiving the allowance. The expression "alteration in allowance" has led to some divergence of opinion and as far as could be gathered, in a very old case, in the matter of Din Muhammad, ILR 5 All. 226, it was held by a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court that "alteration in the allowance" only refers to a power to alter that amount and not to a total discontinuance thereof. That was a case under section 537, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1872. Madras High Court, on the other hand in Meenaskhi Ammal vs. Karuppanna Pellai AIR 1925 Mad. 491 , has taken a contrary view and held that reduction of maintenance to nothing i. e. cancellation of the order granting maintenance would also come within the meaning of the word "alteration". That was a case under section 489, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Relevant provision of section 127 (1) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is a substantial reincarnation of the corresponding provisions of earlier Codes of Criminal Procedure. After giving most anxious consideration and with due respect to the learned Judge of Allahabad High Court, the view taken by the Madras High Court appears to more acceptable as otherwise if a person who has been ordered to pay maintenance is reduced to a pauper, would still be liable to make the payment even if the person receiving the allowance might have acquired a fortune enough for a comfortable maintenance, which could not be the intention of the legislature. It has been observed by different High Courts again and again and also by the Supreme Court (Bhagwan Dutt vs. Smt. Kamla Devi, AIR 1975 SC 83 ) that the object of a maintenance proceeding is prevention of vagrancy and destitution and consequently an order for payment of maintenance cannot be sustained as Soon as the person in whose favour it was made, ceases to be in need of it. Therefore it does not appear that under section 127 (1) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate could not altogether cancel the order of maintenance but could only alter or reduce the same. Thus there is no reason to hold that the expression "alteration in the allowance" as occurring in section 127 (1), Cr. P. C. is used in any such restricted sense and the reduction of the maintenance to nothing is also well within its amplitude. Therefore the finding of the learned Magistrate that the Code of Criminal Procedure did not enable him to cancel the order for payment of maintenance even though the wife was able to maintain herself on the income of her own cannot be sustained and the order made by him directing the husband to make payment of a token maintenance allowance of Rs. 10/- per month is liable to be struck down. ( 6 ) FOR reasons stated above the Criminal Revision Case No. 1242 of is rejected while Criminal Revision Case No. 1075 of 1987 is allowed. The order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the petitioner of this case Shri Padmanava Ghosh to make payment of a monthly allowance of Rs. 10/- from the month of July 1987 is set aside. The application under section 127 (1) Code of Criminal Procedure made by this petitioner is allowed and the order for payment of maintenance by him to the opposite. Smt. Aparajita Ghosh is cancelled from the month of July 1987.