JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 14.1.2009 whereby maintenance allowance has been increased under Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code 2. The only contention of the present petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 solemnized marriage with Banshi Khan S/o Rehman Khan and looking to the fact of re-marriage, the, -nhancement in the amount is unwarranted. 3. The contention or the respondent No. 2 is that she has not solemnized marriage with anybody and the allegations are not proved and the learned Court below has rightly enhanced the amount. 4. An application under Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code was submitted by the respondent No. 21 along with her minor daughter. In the reply, the present petitioner has specifically stated that the respondent No. 2, Manorama has solemnized marriage with Banshi Khan but no rejoinder was filed by the respondent No. 2 in this behalf. In the evidence, she has denied this fact but the present petitioner has stated that the respondent No. 2 has solemnized marriage with Banshi Khan and two certificates Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 have also been placed on record. Furthermore, the statement of the present petitioner before the learned Court was that mother of the respondent No. 2 has also specifically admitted this fact in the proceedings under Section 498A Indian Penal Code that her daughter has solemnized marriage. with Banshi Khan and she remained there for about two months but due to a dispute regarding money she came back. The contention of the present petitioner is that once respondent No. 2 has solemnized marriage with other person, she seized to be his wife and hence no liability can be fastened on him to maintain her and enhancement is unwarranted. 5. The Court below has not considered this factual situation of the matter. Specific evidence has been produced by the present petitioner that the respondent No. 2 solemnized nata marriage with other person and the enhancement in the maintenance allowance was not justified. 6. 5. The Court below has not considered this factual situation of the matter. Specific evidence has been produced by the present petitioner that the respondent No. 2 solemnized nata marriage with other person and the enhancement in the maintenance allowance was not justified. 6. The contention of the respondent is that if she has solemnized marriage, then the present petitioner has remedy under Section 127(3)(a) Criminal Procedure Code In reply to this, the contention of the present petitioner is that he reserves his right to apply under Section 127(3)(a) Criminal Procedure Code But, at the same time, when specific fact has come on record that the respondent No. 2 has solemnized marriage with other person, enhancement in the maintenance allowance is not justified. 7. Looking at the above, the fact has been established by the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 has solemnized marriage with other person, hence enhancement in the maintenance allowance qua respondent No. 2 is unjustified and liable to be quashed and set aside. Nothing has been said regarding the enhancement in regard to the maintenance allowance of the respondent No. 3, who is minor daughter of the present petitioner. 8. Hence, this revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside qua respondent No. 2.Revision partly allowed. *******