JUDGMENT C.K. Prasad, J. 1. Husband, aggrieved by the order dated 15.2.1991 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Bhopal in M.J.C. No. 31 of 1990 directing him to pay permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month to the wife, who is respondent in the appeal, has preferred this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. Admitted facts of the case are that appellant and respondent are husband and wife and they were blessed with a son on 27.1.1980. In view of the order passed in a proceeding under Section 125, Cr. P.C., husband is paying a sum of Rs. 75/- as monthly maintenance to the son. Decree for judicial separation between the parties has been passed on 21.3.1983. 3. According to the wife marriage between the parties took place on 5.2.1979 and inspite of the birth of the son on 27.1.1980, husband never cared for their maintenance and behaved with cruelty. Husband obtained a decree of judicial separation on 29.1.1983 and she is unmarried. She has no independent source of income, hence entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. It has been stated that the monthly income of the husband from salary is Rs. 1,500/- per month besides he has other source of income. According to the husband the wife is working in the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal and she gets a salary of Rs. 450/- per month. It has been further stated by the husband that his salary is Rs. 1,680/- per month and has no other source of income and he has to maintain his parents, second wife and daughter. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed various issues and it held that after judicial separation, wife has not married and she is not employed in the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal. It further found that husband's income from salary and other sources is Rs. 1,600/- per month and the wife is entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. 5. Mr. Agnihotri, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the finding recorded by the Trial Court that wife is not employed in the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal and getting the salary of Rs. 450/- per month are erroneous. Wife in her evidence has denied the allegation of the husband that she is working in the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal. 5. Mr. Agnihotri, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the finding recorded by the Trial Court that wife is not employed in the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal and getting the salary of Rs. 450/- per month are erroneous. Wife in her evidence has denied the allegation of the husband that she is working in the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal. She has specifically denied the suggestion of the husband that she had been engaged by the Municipal Corporation for brooming. This has been supported by her father Nanhelal who has clearly stated in his evidence that his daughter never worked in the Municipal Corporation and is no working even today. He has further stated that she is not getting any salary from the Municipal Corporation and is maintaining his daughter and grand son. Although the husband has stated that his wife is working in the Municipal Corporation as a workman since 1983-84, but no documentary evidence has been produced in support thereof nor any other witness has been examined to support this part of the statement. Accordingly I have no hesitation in affirming the finding of the Trial Court that the wife is not employed in the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal. 6. To put the record straight, it is relevant here to state that the appellant before this Court has filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27,CPC for taking on record the document purportedly showing that the wife is employed in the Municipal Corporation. Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act gives power to the Court to vary, modify or rescind any order passed under Section 25(1) of the Act, in case, it is satisfied that there is change in the circumstances of either party at any time after passing of the order under Section 25(1) of the Act. In case, the husband feels that there is change in the circumstances, he is at liberty to take recourse to Section 25(2) of the Act. 7. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly, but without cost.