JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order, dated 24-12-2001, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, in Misc. Case No. 32/2002, Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., directing the second party-petitioner herein to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs. 500/- to the first party-opposite party-herein for her maintenance and a sum of Rs. 500 as maintenance allowance for their minor child with effect from the date of passing of the order. 2. Heard Mr. A.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the second party-petitioner, and Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the second party-opposite party. 3. In this revision, it has not been agitated that the evidence on record were not sufficient to grant maintenance as has been done by the impugned order. What is, however, contended is that the second party-petitioner could not adduce evidence on account of the fact that he had to accompany with his aunt to Patna for operation of her fractured leg and, on returning him, he contacted his advocate, tried to settle the dispute and came to the Court on the date fixed i.e., on 21-12-2001 and, on reaching the Court, he came to learn, on that day, i.e., on 21-12-2001, that the proceeding had been fixed for arguments, whereupon he, on that very day, i.e., on 21-12-2001, filed, in the said proceeding, a petition and kept a photocopy thereof, wherein he had prayed for allowing him to examine his witnesses. It is also submitted by the second-petitioner that the learned Court below had accepted the said petition and asked the petitioner to come to the Court on 24-12-2001, but when the petitioner went to the Court on 24-12-2001, his Advocate informed him that the judgment had already been pronounced in the proceeding. 4. Apart from the fact that the grievance of the second party-petitioner that he had made an application for allowing him to adduce evidence on 21-12-2001 and the Court had directed him to come to the Court, on 24-12-2001, has not been supported by any affidavit of the petitioner's counsel, even the photocopy of the petition, which the petitioner claims to have retained with him, has not been annexed to the revision petition. The revision petition is, thus, bereft of any credible material lending support to what the petitioner alleges. 5. The revision petition is, thus, bereft of any credible material lending support to what the petitioner alleges. 5. Coupled with the above, a close scrutiny of the record of the proceeding discloses that the proceeding was fixed on 21-12-2001, but on 21-12-2001, only the first party-opposite party appeared in the proceeding. However, arguments of both, sides were heard and the proceeding was fixed for decision on 24-12-2001 and even on 24-12-2001, it was only the first party, who was present in the proceeding and on that day, i.e., on 24-12-2001, the impugned order allowing maintenance was pronounced in the Court. Thus, the record of the proceeding aforementioned also belies the allegations made in the present revision petition. 6. Besides what have been pointed out to show that the second-party petitioner's submission as to what had transpired to the learned Court below, on 21-12-2001, is belied by the materials on record and can be given no credibility at all, it is of immense importance to note that the statements of facts as to what transpired at the hearing, the record in the judgment of the Court are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statement on affidavit or by other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been erroneously recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the mind of the Judge, who has recorded as to what transpired, to apply for making necessary rectifications. That is the only way to have the record corrected. It is not open to such a party to contend before the superior Court to the contrary. [See Ram Bali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 2004 SCW 2748 State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr., reported in Bhavnagar University v. Patiala Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and Ors., reported in and Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani, Central Bank of India v. Vrajlal Kapurchand Gandhi, reported in. 7. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, it is abundantly clear that there is no material at all to support the allegations of the revision petition and, thus, the second party-petitioner has completely failed to make out any case for interference with the impugned order in this revision. This apart, the first party-opposite party herein is, admittedly, the wife of the second party-petitioner. This apart, the first party-opposite party herein is, admittedly, the wife of the second party-petitioner. There is also no dispute that the first party has no means of her sustenance and that the second party-petitioner is capable of giving her maintenance. On these considerations and, particularly, when the evidence on record also discloses that it is on account of the conduct of the second party that the first party Had to leave her matrimonial house, the impugned order cannot be held to be illegal, improper, incorrect and/or unjust. 8. This Court has, therefore, no hesitation in holding that this revision is wholly without merit. 9. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the revision is dismissed. 10. Send back the LCR with a copy of this judgment and order. Revision dismissed