Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-Heard Counsel for the parties. Mst. Memna, natural guardian of Mohd. Sameer filed an application under Section 125, CrPC, for grant of maintenance allowance. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 03.04.2001 granted maintenance allowance of Rs.500/-per month to the petitioner to be paid by the respondent w.e.f. the date of filing of application till date i.e., the date of passing the order. 2. Mst. Memna, mother of the petitioner filed an application for correction in the order dated 03.04.2001. It was mentioned in the application that because of typographical error the maintenance allowance has been ordered to be paid till the date of order, whereas it should have been for the period till the minor attains the age of majority as has been observed by the learned Magistrate in the order itself . The learned Magistrate, on hearing the parties dismissed the said application vide order dated 111.2004. Hence, the present petition. 3. I have gone through the order dated 03.04.2001 granting maintenance allowance and the order dated 111.2004 dismissing the application for correction in the order. On perusal of the order dated 03.04.2001 it appears that the learned Magistrate has recorded a categorical finding to the effect that “applicant No.2 ( petitioner) is the minor son of non-applicant (respondent) and he is entitled to get maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application till he attains the age of majority. But in the operative part of the order the minor has been made entitled to get maintenance allowance only up to the date of order i.e., 03.04.2001. It appears that the learned Magistrate considering the application filed for correction as having been filed under Section 362, CrPC, for review of its order has dismissed the same on the ground that it has no power to review its order. Keeping in view the categorical finding arrived at by the Court below, as stated above, it must be concluded that the operative part of the order dated 03.04.2001 is just contrary to what has been observed by the learned Court in the said order. In my considered view, the application filed by the applicant was only for correction in the order and not for review of the order, which ought to have been corrected. 4. In the result, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. In my considered view, the application filed by the applicant was only for correction in the order and not for review of the order, which ought to have been corrected. 4. In the result, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 111.2004 is set aside and the learned Court below is directed to pass appropriate order in the light of the observations made in this order.