JUDGMENT A.S. Tripathi, J. 1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 2.7.1991 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior, whereby it was directed that the parties to lead evidence by the next date in the proceedings Under Section 127(2) Cr.P.C. 2. The Trial Court had passed an order dated 16.4.1991 directing that the application for modification of the original order granting maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. be converted into the proceedings for modification of the original order Under Section 127(2), Cr.P.C. The prayer of the non-petitioner was allowed to the, extent that the application be converted as an application Under Section 127(2) Cr.P.C. Thereafter the parties were called upon to enter into the evidence on the point and the Trial Magistrate proceeded to decide the case. Aggrieved by the order dated 2.7.1991 directing the parites to lead evidence on the application for modification of the original order, this revision has been preferred. 3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties it appears from the record that it was a long drawn litigation between the parties. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that an agreement was entered into between the parties on 27.2.1989. In that agreement, it was agreed between the parties that in pursuance of the agreement dated 10.11.1987 the parties shall live together and the non-petitioner shall maintain the petitioner as wife and thereafter the matter will be deemed to have been settled. 4. This agreement was filed in Civil Suit No. 73-A/80 pending in the Court of IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior. Thereafter the petitioner had prosecuted her application for recovery of maintenance Under Section 126, Cr.P.C. 5. In that very proceedings, an application was moved by the non-petitioner for modification of the original order in view of the compromise and the proceedings noted in the civil suit. In the meantime, the non-petitioner also moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order passed for granting maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in pursuance of the order dated 16.1.1990. That proceeding was pending and the learned Magistrate refusing to set aside the aforesaid order proceeded with the execution proceedings. 6. The non-petitioner had taken a shelter for refusing maintenance in view of the compromise referred above for the date after the compromise so arrived at on 27.2.1989. 7. That proceeding was pending and the learned Magistrate refusing to set aside the aforesaid order proceeded with the execution proceedings. 6. The non-petitioner had taken a shelter for refusing maintenance in view of the compromise referred above for the date after the compromise so arrived at on 27.2.1989. 7. Now in this revision, only prayer made by the petitioner was that the lower Court be directed to expedite the execution proceedings for recovery of the maintenance awarded to her. 8. Next point raise was that the learned Trial Court had called for a surety to the extent of Rs. 5000/- for issuance of notice to the non-petitioner. 9. This condition was not justified on record, in view of the fact that the proceedings were already converted for modification of the original order Under Section 127(2), Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Magistrate was not justified in calling for any surety for issuing notice to the non-petitioner, since the proceedings were already converted into proceedings Under Section 127(2), Cr.P.C. 10. Therefore, it is directed that the learned Magistrate is free to proceed for modification of the original order according to law Under Section 127(2), Cr.P.C. There is no question of any security from the petitioner for issuing notice to the non-petitioner. It is further directed that the proceedings in Misc. Cri. Cases Nos. 3/90 and 4/90 shall be conducted, inquired and decided by the Magistrate simultaneously together. 11. With these directions, this revision petition is disposed of finally.