JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 30.8.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta whereby revision petition filed against the order dated 7.11.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Merta has been allowed and the maintenance amount has been enhanced from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 4,500/-. 2. The short facts of the case are that the respondent presented a petition under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code for a reasonable maintenance. The learned Court below awarded Rs. 2,500/- as maintenance. Aggrieved by the amount, the respondent moved before the Revisional Court and the learned Revisional Court enhanced the maintenance. Hence, this revision petition. 3. The only contention of the present petitioner is that the Revisional Court is not competent to enhance the amount of maintenance and enhancement could be ordered only by the original Court under Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code 4. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that there is no infirmity in the Revisional Court's order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. It is true that under Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code if after the order under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, any change in circumstance has taken place, then the amount can be amended accordingly but where a revision has been filed aggrieved of the order of the Court below, the Revisional Court is well within its jurisdiction to enhance the amount of the maintenance. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the present petitioner is Patwari and after the order of the Court below, the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission has been applied to the Government Servants and income of the present petitioner has been enhanced substantively and by taking note of this fact, the Revisional Court has enhanced the maintenance. 7. The respondent has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Satish Jiyani v. The State of Rajasthan, 2011 Raj. 7. The respondent has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Satish Jiyani v. The State of Rajasthan, 2011 Raj. CANDID 229 , wherein it has been specifically held as under: "I am of the view that the Revisional Court has the same powers as that of the trial Court, therefore, in my view the learned Revisional Court has committed no illegality, impropriety or irregularity while passing the impugned order dated 31.10.2009 Page 5 of 6 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 70/2010 and accordingly, the same does not require any interference. Further, the learned Revisional Court while enhancing the amount of maintenance, appreciated all the relevant facts and as per the admission of the petitioner-husband in the reply regarding his monthly income being Rs. 11,600/-, the learned Revisional Court was justified in enhancing the maintenance allowance, which cannot be said to be excessive." 8. In view of the above, in the present case when fact of the Government service and enhancement in the pay of the present petitioner are admitted, the Revisional Court was justified in enhancing the amount of maintenance allowance. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered in Budh Ram v. Smt. Siulesh Bala and Ors., 2002 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 922 , and Raj Kumar v. Mst. Shantai Bai, 2002 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 540 , wherein provisions under Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code have been explained. 9. In view of the law laid down in Sudesh Jiyani's (supra) case, the impugned order passed by I he learned Revisional Court does not suffer from any infirmity. The revision petition has not force and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. 10. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.Revision petition dismissed. *******