DO. K. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER Chandrakali Bai wife of respondent Cheddi Singh was awarded maintenance amount of Rs. 50. 00 per month vide order dated 2/8/1966 passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 1060/65. The Petitioner applied for alteration of the maintenance allowance u/s 127 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, which was registered as Misc. Cr. Case No. 48/83. The said application moved on behalf of the petitioner was allowed by J. M. F. C. Baloda Bazar district Raipur vide order dated 24/10/1985 passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 48/ 83 and against this order a revision was preferred by the present respondent Chhedi Singh vide revision No. 64/86 in the Court of jjjrd Additional Sessions Judge Camp Baloda Bazar district Raipur who allowed the said revision petition vide order dated 5/8/1988 which is impugned order under revision. ( 2 ) ON behalf of petitioner Chandra Kali Bai it has been submitted that the learned courts below have erred in exercising the jurisdiction in not awarding sufficient amount for the maintenance of the wife. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, the maintenance amount of Rs. 50/- per month was awarded in the year 1966 whereas its purchasing value has materially reduced and as such the amount of Rs. 50/- per month was insufficient for the maintenance of the petitioner and that the Court should have increased the maintenance amount to a sum of Rs. 150/- per month, looking to the admitted income of the respondent. On the aforesaid ground it was requested that the revision petition be allowed and the amount of maintenance be increased Suitably looking to the circumstances of the case. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the non-applicant/respondent Cheddi Singh it was submitted that in the absence of proof of change in circumstance and as no evidence had been adduced by the petitioner before the J. M. F. C. , Baloda Bazar in this regard the maintenance amount could not have been increased from Rs. 50 per month to Rs. 75/- per month and so the jjjrd Additional Sessions Judge, Camp Baloda Bazar had committed no error in allowing the revision petition filed on behalf of the present Non- applicant/respondent Chhedi Singh. It was accordingly submitted that the present revision filed on behalf of the petitioner Chandra Kali Bai deserves to be dismissed. 50 per month to Rs. 75/- per month and so the jjjrd Additional Sessions Judge, Camp Baloda Bazar had committed no error in allowing the revision petition filed on behalf of the present Non- applicant/respondent Chhedi Singh. It was accordingly submitted that the present revision filed on behalf of the petitioner Chandra Kali Bai deserves to be dismissed. ( 4 ) FROM a bare reading of section 127 of the Cr. Procedure Code it is clear that on proof of change in circumstances of any person, receiving u/s 125 Cr. P. C. a monthly allowance, or order under the same section to pay a monthly allowance to his wife, child, father or mother as the case may be, the Magistrate may make such alteration in the allowance as he thinks fit. Now from a perusal of the record it is clear that the present petitioner had filed an application u/s 127 Cr. P. C. before J. M. F. C. Baloda Bazar for raising the maintenance allowance from Rs. 50/- per month to Rs. 300/- per month in view of the change in circumstances and the cost of daily use articles havingincreased 2 or 3 times, since awarded maintenance allowance of Rs. 50/- per month granted in the year 1966. In the replay the non-applicant/respondent Chhedi Singh bad denied the allegations of para 4 made in the application filed by Chandra Kali Bai u/s 127 Cr. P. C. The petitioner/applicant Chandra Kali Bai was therefore, duty bound to adduce evidence in support of the fact of the change in circumstances on the basis of which alteration in the maintenance allowance was sought. From the perusal of the record it is clear that neither the petitioner Chandra Kali Bai nor her husband Chhedi Singh (Non. applicant) had adduced any evidence regarding the change in the circumstances and on the basis of which alteration in the maintenance allowance was sought by the petitioner. It is also-clear from the record that the counsel for both the parties had submitted before the Court concerned, that is, J. M. F. C. Baloda Bazar, that they did not want to adduce any evidence as is also clear from the order sheet dated 12/10/1985. It is also-clear from the record that the counsel for both the parties had submitted before the Court concerned, that is, J. M. F. C. Baloda Bazar, that they did not want to adduce any evidence as is also clear from the order sheet dated 12/10/1985. ( 5 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be said that the learned 111rd Additional Sessions Judge, Camp, Baloda Bazar district Raipur has committed any illegality in passing the impugned order dated 5/8/1988 in Criminal Revision No. 64/86. The impugned order dated 5/8/1983 passed by 111rd Additional Sessions Judge, Camp, Baloda Bazar district Raipur being neither illegal nor perverse in any way, hence it calls for no interference in this revision petition. The revision petition filed on behalf of the petitioner Chandra Kali Bai is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed. .