JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up on the Second Stay Application No. 178/2010 filed on behalf of the petitioner Dal Chand in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 985 of 2009. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the miscellaneous petition itself has been heard on merits. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Dilchand submits that the respondent Smt. Kanku is the petitioner's mother. Learned counsel submits that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in the year 2004. He submits that Smt. Kanku who residing with the petitioner brother sold a chunk of the land devolved upon her from the her husband i.e. the petitioner's father for a huge sum of money and is thus having substantial means to cain tain herself. Learned counsel submits that the land was sold by Smt. Kanku through a registered sale deed executed^ in November, 2007 and by that time she had already been examined at the trial and thus, the petitioner could not confront her with the factum of receipt of huge sum of money from the sale made by her in the year 2007. Learned counsel thus contends that it is now apparent that Smt. Kanku having received a huge sum of money through the sale is in a position to maintain herself after the sale was executed. Learned counsel thus prays that the petitioner be given opportunity to confront Kanku with this fact and requests that the trial Court be directed to reconsider the question of Smt. Kanku being entitled to receive any maintenance from the petitioner in view of the fact that she is herself having sufficient means to maintain 1 herself. 4. Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the document which the petitioner is now relying upon was not put to Kanku in her cross-examination and therefore, it could not have been taken into consideration by the trial Court. 4. Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the document which the petitioner is now relying upon was not put to Kanku in her cross-examination and therefore, it could not have been taken into consideration by the trial Court. He urged that if the petitioner wishes to bring some new facts on record then he should approach the trial Court with an application for modification in the maintenance order under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. He further submits that if this Court is inclined to remand the matter to the trial Court for reconsideration, then the order of maintenance, which has been passed in favour of Smt. Kanku be considered lo be an order of interim maintenance and the trial Court may be permitted lo reconsider the case only if the petitioner pays the complete amount of the maintenance accrued till date to the respondent. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar, perused the order impugned and the documents available on the record. Undisputedly the document of sale, which the petitioner relies upon was executed subsequent to Smt. Kanku being examined at the trial and thus the petitioner could not have confronted the witness with the same. The document was placed on record of the trial Court before the case was decided and is a material document. The trial Court would not be in a position to appreciate the relevance and the erect or me document unless the claimant i.e. Smt. Kanku is confronted with the same. As the document had already been filed by the petitioner on the trial Court's record before the case was decided as such there would be no justification in relegating the petitioner to approach tire trial Court with a prayer for modification in the maintenance order by filing an application under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. 6. Having regard lo the facts and circumstances of the case, the miscellaneous petition is allowed in the terms set out below: (1) The order of maintenance dated 20.1.12009 shall now be construed to be an order of interim maintenance in favour of the respondent Smt. Kanku. (2) The petitioner shall deposit the arrears of interim maintenance accrued till date in four equal monthly instalments and shall also continue to make payment of current maintenance amount @ Rs. 2,000/- p.m. to the respondent Kanku as interim maintenance. (2) The petitioner shall deposit the arrears of interim maintenance accrued till date in four equal monthly instalments and shall also continue to make payment of current maintenance amount @ Rs. 2,000/- p.m. to the respondent Kanku as interim maintenance. The trial Court shall permit the petitioner to file an application for recalling the respondent Smt. Kanku for confronting her with the sale document which is available on the record. On such an application being filed, the trial Court shall recall the applicant Smt. Kanku and shall permit the petitioner to confront her with the relevant facts regarding the sale of the land. After the said confrontation is done, the trial Court shall hear the arguments on the main application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and thereafter shall pass a fresh order on the same in accordance with law. (3) However, if the petitioner does not deposit the arrears of maintenance, the trial Court shall proceed with the recovery of arrears of maintenance and shall not permit the petitioner to re-agitate the issue before it and the order of maintenance dated 20.1.2009 shall be considered to be final. Record be sent back forthwith. Petition allowed. *******