JUDGMENT 1. - This is the second round of litigation by the husband apparently with a view to avoid payment of maintenance allowance awarded to the wife non-petitioner and two minor sons by a competent court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, referred to as the Code). In order to appreciate the controversy raised in this petition under Section 482 of the Code, it is necessary to give relevant facts:The wife, non-petitioner herein, had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code for grant of maintenance for herself and the two minor sons in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kaman. This application was filed on 27th March, 1990, and the learned Magistrate vide his order dated February 16, 1993 granted maintenance to the wife @ Rs. 500/- per month and to the minor sons @ Rs. 300/- each per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. March 27, 1990. This order was challenged in a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg. However, the revision petition was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, vide his order dated November 4, 1993. Thereafter, the petitioner - husband approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code challenging the order of maintenance granted by the Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deeg. This petition was decided by this Court on May 26, 1994 and the same was dismissed. It shall be useful to reproduce the order of this Court passed on May 26, 1994 : " S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 498/94, Kallu v. Smt. Majidan 26.5.94 Hon'ble N.L. Tibrewal J. Shri Jainendra Jain counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Agarwal, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This is a petition under section 482 Cr.PC. with a prayer to set aside the judgment dated 4.11.93 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg in Criminal Revision No. 8/93 whereby the order of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Kaman in proceedings under section 125 Cr.PC. was confirmed. The learned Magistrate had awarded Rs. 500/- P.M. as maintenance to the wife and Rs. 300/- P.M. to each of the minor children. This petition can be disposed of on two counts. was confirmed. The learned Magistrate had awarded Rs. 500/- P.M. as maintenance to the wife and Rs. 300/- P.M. to each of the minor children. This petition can be disposed of on two counts. Firstly, against the order of granting maintenance by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate the petitioner had preferred a revision petition which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg and the same was rejected vide judgment dated 4.11.93. A second revision is barred by sub-section (3) of Sec. 397 Cr.PC. The aforesaid petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. The Apex Court of the country has taken a similar view in Dharampal and others v. Smt. Ramshri and others ( AIR 1993 S.C. 1361 ). Otherwise also, I do not find any merit in this petition to make interference in the matter of maintenance allowance. Argument of the learned counsel that the prayer of the wife as for lesser amount but still more amount of maintenance has been awarded, has no merit. Both the learned courts below have recorded a finding that the petitioner husband is earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. In these days of high cost of living the maintenance of Rs. 500/- to the wife and Rs. 300/- each to the minor children cannot be said to be excessive looking to the income of the husband. Both the children not only require meals and clothing but they also require proper education and, as such, Rs. 300/- to each children cannot be said to be excessive. It is the duty of the father to maintain the children and make proper arrangement for their meals, clothing and education. Judged from any angle, the petition has no merit and the same is dismissed summarily. sd/- N.L. Tibrewal, J." 2. It appears that the wife non-petitioner initiated proceedings for the recovery of maintenance allowance and the learned Magistrate has issued warrant for arrest of the petitioner vide his order dated May 3, 1994 as he failed to make the payment of maintenance allowance. That order was also challenged before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deeg and who vide his order dated June 29, 1994 granted a conditional stay order staying execution of the arrest warrant on payment of half of the arrears of the maintenance allowance. That order was also challenged before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deeg and who vide his order dated June 29, 1994 granted a conditional stay order staying execution of the arrest warrant on payment of half of the arrears of the maintenance allowance. However, the result of the revision petition has not been informed to this Court.Then the petitioner initiated the present proceeding by moving an application under Section 127 of the Code on June 27, 1994 whereby he has prayed that the wife should be paid maintenance allowance for the period of Iddat only and maintenance allowance to the two minor sons be reduced from Rs. 300/-per month to Rs. 10/- each per month. In the application, he vaguely stated that he had divorced the wife non-petitioner on June 18, 1992 in accordance with Mohammedan Law. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated August 12, 1994. This order is being challenged before this Court under Section 482 of the Code. 3. The only argument raised by the learned cousnel for the petitioner-husband was that after coming into force the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1586 (Act No. 255 of 1986) the wife was entitled to get maintenance for the period of Iddat only. 4. This argument is not sustainable for two reasons. Firstly, in the earlier proceeding for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code, the husband petitioner did not press such ground though it was available to him and no evidence was led before the Magistrate to the effect that he had divorced his wife on June 18, 1992. It is relevant to state here that the application for grant of maintenance has been decided by the Magistrate on February 16, 1993. In his reply dated June 27, 1992 to the application for grant of interim maintenance moved by the wife and two children, the petitioner had vaguely pleaded about the factum of divorce to the wife on June 18, 1992 but he did not press this ground subsequently before the Magistrate and led no evidence to the effect that he had divorced the wife non-petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the same ground in subsequent petition moved by him under Section 127 of the Code.Secondly, no such ground is available to the petitioner under Section 127 of the Code for seeking cancellation of the order of maintenance passed against him under Section 125 of the Code Section 127 of the Code reads as under:- "127. Alteration in allowance: (1) On proof of a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving under Section 125 a monthly allowance, or ordered 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: Provided that if the increase the allowance, the monthly rate of five hundred rupees in the whole shall not be exceeded. (2) Where it appears to the Magistrate that in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under Sec. 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order, or as the case may be, vary the same accordingly. (3) Where any order has been made under Sec. 125 in favour of a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband, the Magistrate shall, if he is satisfied that: (a) the woman has, after the date of such divorce, remarried cancel such order as from the date of her remarriage; (b) the woman has been divorced by her husband and that she has received, whether before or after the date of the said order, the whole of the sum which, under any customary or personal law applicable to the parties, was payable on such divorce, cancel such order: (i) in the case where such sum was paid before such order, from the date on which order was made. (ii) in any other case, from the date of expiry of the period, if any, for which maintenance has been actually paid by the husband to the woman; (c) the woman has obtained a divorce from her husband and that she had voluntarily surrendered her rights to maintenance after her divorce, cancel the order from the date thereof. (ii) in any other case, from the date of expiry of the period, if any, for which maintenance has been actually paid by the husband to the woman; (c) the woman has obtained a divorce from her husband and that she had voluntarily surrendered her rights to maintenance after her divorce, cancel the order from the date thereof. (4) At the time of making any decree for the recovery of any maintenance or dowry by any person, in whom a monthly allowance has been ordered to be paid under Sec. 125, the Civil Court shall take into account the sum which has been paid in, or recovered by, such person has monthly allowance in pursuance of the said order." 5. Admittedly, sub-section (1) has no application as the change of circumstances has not taken place after the order of maintenance allowance. The ground pleaded in the application is not available to the petitioner for cancellation of the order either under sub-section (2) or (3) of Section 127 of the Code.This is clear that the whole object of the petitioner is to avoid the order of maintenance which has been confirmed up to the High Court. The provisions of Section 125 of the Code is in the manner of social justice and specifically, in fact, to protect the neglected women and children. Any order passed under Section 125 of the Code is valid until vacated or altered in terms of provisions of the Code in an appropriate proceedings. The factum of divorce, which is now being pleaded was not pressed in the earlier proceeding under Section 125 of the Code and no evidence was led before the Magistrate to prove this factum of divorce.In these circumstances, I do not find any ground of invoke inherent power under Section 482 of the Code to interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. *******