JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The petitioners herein are the children and wife respectively of the respondent. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the orders rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Shimla, Camp at Rohru, whereby he reversed the orders rendered by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Rohru, District Shimla, on an application preferred before the latter Court by the petitioners herein under Section 127 Cr.P.C claiming therein enhancement of maintenance allowance over and above the one as previously ordered to be defrayed to the petitioners herein by the respondent by the Court of competent jurisdiction on an application preferred before the latter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Obviously, the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. would stand duly constituted and be also maintainable before the Court it was preferred, only in the event of it having been pleaded therein by the petitioners herein that the respondent therein was subsequent to the rendition of the orders on the previous application before the competent Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was more financially empowered, hence it was justifiable to order for enhancement of maintenance allowance in favour of petitioners herein, over and above the one as previously ordered on an application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners herein before the competent Court. Besides there had to be a portrayal in the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C that given the escalated needs of the children of the respondent comprised in and arising out of their mother petitioner No. 3 being encumbered with the liability to pay their fees for theirs attending school as also for their concomitantly higher needs of food and clothing. Moreover, there had to be cogent and ample evidence on record to succor the pleadings or to give sinew to the pleadings portraying the facts aforesaid. Even though pleadings apposite to the factum of the respondent herein earning a salary higher than the one he was drawing at the time of rendition of orders on application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. exist in paragraph 3, so also pleadings exist in paragraph 3 of petitioners No. 1 and 2 portraying that the children of respondent herein now proceed to attend school necessitating or entailing a higher financial burden upon their mother concomitantly rendering the respondent amenable to pay a maintenance allowance to them higher than the one previously ordered by the competent Court. There is cogent proof of the petitioner drawing a salary of Rs. 25,591/- as evidenced by AW -1/2. The increased/escalated salary as now drawn by the respondent herein marks the factum of his being more financially empowered since the rendition of orders on an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Court of competent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners herein. Consequently, with the uncontroverted fact of the respondent herein drawing salary of Rs.25,592/- at the time of preferment of application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. whereas previously at the time of rendition of orders on application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. he was drawing Rs.8,000/- as salary renders him now more financially empowered and capacitated to bear a higher burden of maintenance allowance to the petitioners herein. Besides the factum of petitioners No. 1 and 2 the off springs of respondent herein now attending school is marked by Ext.AW-1/4 and Ext.AW-1/3. Consequently, with the increase in the needs of petitioner No.3 for meeting the expenses towards their tuition fees for attending school, besides the concomitant natural incidental needs towards other expenses for their education as well as their up keep and maintenance, which needs now arise and which did not exist at the time of rendition of orders under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the competent Court of jurisdiction, naturally then the good, tenable and a strong ground as manifested in application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. stood proved by cogent evidence as such necessitating enhancement of maintenance allowance in favour of the petitioners herein. The orders rendered by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Rohru, were legally formidable and necessitated no interference. The learned Revisionist Court has discarded the tenable material on record portraying the proven fact of their being necessity of enhancement of maintenance allowance in favour of the petitioners herein. By excluding the said material the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Shimla has committed a grave illegality and impropriety. His order needs to be interfered with. Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.