JUDGMENT Deo Narayan Thanvi, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The learned trial Court has allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. by awarding maintenance to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 2,500/- from the date of filing of the application on 30.10.2003 by enhancing the amount from Rs. 450/-, originally awarded by the order dated 31.10.1992. Against this order, a revision petition was filed by the non-petitioner, wherein, the revisional Court i.e. the Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1, Bikaner reduced the amount to Rs. 1,500/- instead of Rs. 2,500/- per month on the ground that the learned Magistrate has abruptly increased the amount.3. I see no reason as to how the revisional Court came to this conclusion, against which this revision petition has been filed by petitioner Smt. Santsoh. The learned Magistrate has assigned adequate reasons in Para No. 7 of the order that looking to the fact that petitioner is residing in a rented house, and she is ill, and having no work, and in the present days, it will be desirable that the amount should be increased.4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that though, he has no dispute about enhancement, but his paying capacity is low, and the amount should be not more than Rs. 1,500/-.5. I have perused the order of the first revisional Court. It appears that while allowing the revision petition, the learned revisional Court has only taken into consideration that the amount has been abruptly increased. The revisional Court should have discussed the finding before arriving at a contrary opinion of a Magisterial Court. Therefore, in my view, the order of the revisional Court is without any foundation and cannot be upheld.6. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 6.10.2007 passed by the first revisional Court i.e. the Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bikaner is set aside and the order dated 1.8.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Bikaner is restored. Revision petition allowed. *******