1. Heard Mr. P. Roy, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. I. Alam, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Roy, learned Sr. Counsel, has contended that, notwithstanding the amendment brought by the 2001 amendment ( No. 50 of 2001) in respect of Section 127, the Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short, Cr.P.C.) there can't be enhancement of maintenance allowance more than Rs.500/- ( Rupees Five Hundred) at a time. 2. In view of the said law point, raised by the petitioner, regarding ceiling of enhancement of maintenance allowance and in order to arrive at a correct decision, this Court requested Mr. A.K. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. Counsel to assist this Court. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. Counsel, graciously accepted the request and rendered his valuable assistance by highlighting the consequence of the amendment in respect of Section 127 Cr.P.C. 3. By this criminal petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is the husband of the opposite party, has challenged the correctness and legality of the order, dated 05.06.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, in Criminal Petition No.74/2013, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, while dismissing the revision, filed by the petitioner, upheld the order, dated 15.11.2013, passed by the learned SDJM (S), Morigaon, thereby allowing enhancement of the maintenance allowance from Rs.2000/- per month to Rs.5000/- per month in favour of the opposite party wife and their child. 4. The opposite party, i.e. the wife of the present petitioner, initiated a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance allowance for herself and their minor child from her husband i.e. the petitioner. The application was registered as M.R. Case No. 278/2012 and the learned C.J.M., Morigaon, by judgment and order, dated 31.12.2009, while rejecting the prayer of the wife opposite party, granted maintenance allowance of Rs.2000/- per month in favour of the child and the petitioner continued to pay the same. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party (wife) preferred a revision, being Criminal Petition No. 2/2010 and the learned Sessions Judge by his order, dated 13.07.2010, while allowing the revision, granted maintenance allowance @ Rs.1000/- each in favour of the mother and the child. Accordingly, the petitioner continued to pay the same. 6. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party (wife) preferred a revision, being Criminal Petition No. 2/2010 and the learned Sessions Judge by his order, dated 13.07.2010, while allowing the revision, granted maintenance allowance @ Rs.1000/- each in favour of the mother and the child. Accordingly, the petitioner continued to pay the same. 6. The opposite party, in view of price rise and increase in the requirement, including the education her daughter, by filing an application, under Section 127 Cr.P.C., prayed for enhancement of the maintenance allowance. This petition has been registered as MR Case No. 278 of 2012 and notice was issued to the petitioner, who used to serve in the Indian Army. Though, the petitioner, initially took steps and prayed for time to file written objection, he failed to appear or file any written statement, despite granting sufficient time for the same. 7. Therefore, the learned Magistrate, by order, dated 15.11.2013, passed in MR No. 278/2012, allowed enhancement of maintenance allowance @ Rs.1500/- each and thus enhanced the total maintenance allowance of Rs.2000/- p.m. to Rs.5,000/- p.m. 8. Aggrieved by the enhancement, the petitioner challenged the said order by filing a revision petition, being Crl. Revn. No. 74/2013, and the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, by the impugned order, upheld the said order of enhancement. 9. Dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner, by this Crl. Ptn. filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has challenged the order aforesaid. The grounds taken by the petitioner are as follows:- (i) That the Courts below committed error of law by enhancing the allowance by Rs.1500/- in contravention of the statutory provision, provided by Section 127(1) Cr.P.C., inasmuch as, as per the proviso to the said Section, the enhancement can't exceed Rs.500/- at a time. (ii) That the Courts below failed to appreciate that the opposite party was regularly getting @ Rs.2000/- per month and that the trial Court committed error by passing ex-parte order and that the revisional Court also failed to consider this aspect of the matter. 10. With regard to the ceiling of enhancement, as provided by the pre amended provision of Section 127(1) Cr.P.C., Mr. A. K. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. 10. With regard to the ceiling of enhancement, as provided by the pre amended provision of Section 127(1) Cr.P.C., Mr. A. K. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. Counsel, referring to the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Amendment) Act, No. 50 of 2001, has submitted that by the “ The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001 ( No. 50 of 2001), hereinafter called “ the amendment Act”, the upper limit of rupees five hundred, prescribed by the pre-amended Sections 125 and 127 Cr.P.C. have been deleted, thereby granting power to order payment of maintenance allowance at such reasonable rate as the Magistrate thinks fit. 11. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. Counsel, has also submitted that, the law makers, in tune with the amendment in respect of Section 125 Cr.P.C., withdrew the limit of Rs.500/-, provided by the proviso to the pre amended Section 127(1) Cr.P.C., by the said amendment Act, 2001. 12. Mr. A.K. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. Counsel, has further submitted that, in view of the said amendment and substitution of the earlier Section 127(1) by the amended provision of law, the earlier 'proviso' to the Section 127(1) has been deleted, thereby invsting the jurisdiction to grant a reasonable amount as maintenance allowance and also to enhance the same by such amount as the Magistrate may thinks fit. 13. Refuting the said argument, advanced by Mr. A. K. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. P. Roy, learned Sr. Counsel, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that by the said amendment, the earlier provision, prescribed by the 'proviso' to the Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. has not been withdrawn and as such, despite the said amendment, the upper limit of rupees five hundred, provided by the pre-amended 'proviso' to the Section 127 (1) Cr.P.C. will be applicable, in the present case also. 14. With the above submission, Mr. Roy, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the Courts below committed error, in law, by granting more than rupees five hundred, as enhancement, at a time. 15. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Courts below failed to consider that the opposite party wife worked as a Teacher and that she used to earn herself. In support of his contention, the learned Sr. 15. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Courts below failed to consider that the opposite party wife worked as a Teacher and that she used to earn herself. In support of his contention, the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision held in the case of Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. -Vs.- Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank Employees Union and Another, reported in (2004) 1 SCC 574 . 16. Having heard the learned Sr. Counsel, appearing for both the parties, I find no difficulty in understanding that amendment in respect of Section 125 and 127 Cr.P.C. has been brought by the amendment Act, 2001 and the Section 127 Cr.P.C. has been substituted by a new provision of law. 17. The pre amended provision of Section 125 (d) Cr.P.C. contained the words “ at such monthly rate, not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole.” Similarly, in the pre amended Section 127 (1) Cr.P.C., there existed a 'proviso', prescribing the upper limit of enhancement. As per the said ceiling, enhancement up to rupees five hundred only, at a time, was permissible. Subsequently, by the amendment Act, 2001 ( No. 50 of 2001) amendment, in respect of Section 125(1) and 127(1) Cr.P.C. has been made. By the amendment in respect of Section 125(1) Cr.P.C., the words “ not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole” stood omitted, thereby granting power to grant maintenance at such rate as the Magistrate may think fit. 18. By the amendment, made by the said amendment Act, 2001, in respect of Section 127 (1) Cr.P.C., which reads as follows. The earlier sub Section 1 of Section 127 Cr.P.C. has been substituted by a new provision of law. 3. 18. By the amendment, made by the said amendment Act, 2001, in respect of Section 127 (1) Cr.P.C., which reads as follows. The earlier sub Section 1 of Section 127 Cr.P.C. has been substituted by a new provision of law. 3. Amendment of section 127- In Section 127 of the principal Act- (i) for sub-section (1) , the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely:- “(1) On proof of a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving, under Section 125 a monthly allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance, or ordered under the same section to pay a monthly allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance , to his wife, child, fathe or mother, as the case may be, the Magistrate may make such alternation, as he thinks fit, in the allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance, as the case may be.” (ii) in sub-section (3), in clause ©, for the word “maintenance”, the words “maintenance or interim maintenance, as the case may be,” shall be substituted; (iii) in sub-section (4);- (a) for the words “monthly allowance has been ordered”, the word “monthly allowance for the maintenance and interim maintenance or any of them has been ordered'' shall be substituted. (b) for the words ''as monthly allowance in pursuance of, the words “as monthly allowance for the maintenance and interim maintenance or any of them, as the case may be , in pursuance of' shall be substituted. 19. The earlier provision of Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. (prior to the amendment), stood as follows:- “127. Alteration in allowance:-(1) On proof of a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving, under Section 125 a monthly allowance, or ordered under the same section to pay a monthly allowance to his wife, child, father or mother, as the case may be, the Magistrate may make such alternation, as he thinks fit. Provided that if he increases the allowance, the monthly rate of five hundred rupees in the whole shall not be exceeded.” 20. The proviso to the Section 127 (1) Cr.P.C. prescribing the ceiling was a part of Section 127(1). By the said amendment, the entire Sub-Section (1) of Section 127 including the 'Proviso' has been substituted, by the new provision. 21. The proviso to the Section 127 (1) Cr.P.C. prescribing the ceiling was a part of Section 127(1). By the said amendment, the entire Sub-Section (1) of Section 127 including the 'Proviso' has been substituted, by the new provision. 21. In the case of Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the normal function of a proviso is to except something out of the enactment or to quality something enacted there in which but for the proviso would be within the purview of the enactment. The Supreme Court has referred to Mullinsv Treasurer of Survey, (1880) 5 QBD 170 and Shah Bhojraj Kurveyi Oil Mills and Ginning Factory - Vs.- Subhash Chandra Yograj Sinha, ( AIR 1961 SC 1596 ). A 'proviso' is added to qualify or create an exception to what is in the enactment. A proviso is not a general rule. 22. In view of the above amendment resulting substitution of Section 127(1) CPC, in above manner, the ceiling, prescribed by the proviso to Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. (pre-amendment) stood deleted. In fact, the entire Section 127(1) including the proviso stood substituted by a new provision of law i.e. Section 127(1). The amended Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. does not contain the earlier proviso, prescribing the ceiling of enhancement. Therefore, in my considered opinion, there was no difficulty/ restriction for the Magistrate to grant more than rupees five hundred, as enhancement, at a time. Hence, the Courts below committed no error by granting enhancement at the rate of Rs.1500/- (Rupees Fifteen Hundred) each per month in favour of the mother and the child each at a time. Fact remains that the enhancement has been made after four years of the initial order of granting maintenance allowance. Hence, price rise that took place during the said period and the consequential increase in the day-to-day need justifies the said enhancement. 23. Therefore, I find no force in the contention, raised on behalf of the petitioner, regarding the enhancement. 24. The second ground, taken by the petitioner is that the opposite party was a School Teacher and that the maintenance was allowed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file written objection. 25. From the record, more particularly, the impugned order, dated 05.06.2014, passed in Crl. 24. The second ground, taken by the petitioner is that the opposite party was a School Teacher and that the maintenance was allowed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file written objection. 25. From the record, more particularly, the impugned order, dated 05.06.2014, passed in Crl. Revision No. 74/2013 and the order dated 15.11.2013, passed by the learned Magistrate, in the proceeding under Section 127 Cr.P.C., it appears that the petitioner continued to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of rupees two thousand per month, without any objection, in favour of his wife and the child. 26. The learned Magistrate, upon receipt of the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. issued notice to the petitioner and the petitioner, by filing petition, prayed for time to submit objection, for which the case was adjourned and fixed 24.03.2014 for written statement, with cost of rupees five hundred. Again, on 10.04.2013, on being asked for, time was granted to file objection fixing the case on 07.05.2013 for written objection. The petitioner, again, on 07.05.2013, prayed for time. This time, the Court by its order, dated 07.05.2013, while rejecting the prayer for adjournment, posted the case for evidence, on 10.06.2013 granting liberty to the petitioner to file written statement before the said date. Though the case was, subsequently, adjourned till 06.07.2013 for evidence, the petitioner, without filing any written statement/objection, as ordered by the Court, vide order dated 07.05.2013, prayed for vacating the order for ex-parte evidence and grant of time to file written statement. 27. The learned Magistrate observed that the petitioner adopted a delaying tactics, without filing the written objection and that the earlier cost was also not paid. 28. In view of the above, considering the plight of the destitute woman (wife) and the child, the Court proceeded and examined the witnesses, produced by the petitioner, in the said proceeding under Section 127 Cr.P.C. However, the Court posted the case, on 19.10.2013, for cross examination of the witnesses by the 2nd party (present petitioner). 29. On 19.10.2013 also, the husband 2nd party i.e. the present petitioner and his Counsel were absent. Accordingly, the Court fixed the case, on 15.1.2013, for order. 29. On 19.10.2013 also, the husband 2nd party i.e. the present petitioner and his Counsel were absent. Accordingly, the Court fixed the case, on 15.1.2013, for order. In view of the above, as the petitioner failed to file written objection and also to cross examine the petitioner's (wife) witnesses, despite granting many opportunities, the learned Magistrate, considering the price rise, the hardship faced by the wife petitioner and the cost of education of the child, enhanced the allowance at the rate of Rs.1500/- (Rupees fifteen hundred) in favour each of the wife petitioner and their child, in addition to earlier amount of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand) each, and thus, fixed the total amount at rupees five thousand. 30. From the above, it appears that the learned Magistrate granted sufficient opportunities to the petitioner to file written objection and also cross examine the witnesses, by granting several adjournments, but the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunities. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was left with no other option except passed necessary order. I find that the learned Magistrate, as well as the learned Sessions Judge applied their judicial mind and passed reasoned order. 31. In view of what has been discussed above, I don't find any gross illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, requiring interference, in exercise of jurisdiction, vested by Section 482 Cr.P.C. 32. Considering the facts and circumstances and the grounds, taken by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has come up with this second revision challenging the revisional order, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, in the garb of preferring an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 33. A second revision, by the same party, against the revisional order of the Sessions Judge, on the same subject matter, is barred by Section 399(3) Cr.P.C. 34. In view of the above, considering entire aspect of the matter, I find no merit in this petition. 35. Hence, this petition is dismissed at this stage itself. Before I part with this record, I acknowledge, with appreciation, the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. A. K. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Counsel, in disposing this matter.