JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard learned counsel, Mr. D. Sarkar for the petitioner and learned amicus curiae, Mr. R.G. Chakraborty for the respondent. 2. The respondent, Subir Laskar(minor) through his other Smt. Rangabala Nath(Laskar) presented a petition under Section 127 of CrPC seeking enhancement of maintenance allowance before the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala on 19.12.2011 in connection with Misc. Case No.308 of 2007 in which the original order was passed by the said court allowing maintenance. That petition filed under Section 127 of CrPC was registered as Misc. Case No.454 of 2011. By order dated 05.09.2012, Misc. Case No.454 of 2011 was disposed of by the learned Judge, Family Court with the following order : “(6) Considering the changed circumstances, cost of essential commodities including cost of education as well as the increase of salary of the opposite party, I do hereby order that the opposite party Sri Swadesh Laskar is to pay an enhanced amount of Rs.3,000/- per month w.e.f. 01-12-11 i.e., from the month of filing of the instant petition. SDM, Jirania is hereby directed to issue necessary instruction for deduction of Rs.5,000/- i.e. Rs.3,000/- for Master Subir Laskar and Rs.2,000/- to Smti Rangabala Nath(Laskar) from the salary of the opposite party Sri Swadesh Laskar regularly w.e.f. 01-09-2012. (7) The arrear amount of maintenance w.e.f. 01-12-2011 to 30-08-2012 @ Rs.1,000/- per month is also liable to be deducted from the salary in 3(three)equal installments. SDM, Jirania is directed to send the said amount of maintenance to Smt. Rangabala Nath(Laskar) either by post or to her Savings Bank Account if furnished later on.” 3. The grievance of the present petitioner is that the application was filed seeking enhancement of maintenance of Subir Laskar, whereas by the above order the learned Judge, Family Court enhanced maintenance of Smt. Rangabala Nath(Laskar) as well as Sri Subir Laskar. Order dated 03.04.2008 passed by the Family Court in Misc. Case No.308 of 2007 shows that on an application filed under Section 127 of CrPC maintenance allowance in respect of two sons of Rangabala was enhanced. No maintenance was allowed to Rangabala who was working as a Staff Nurse. In the L.C. record I further find an order of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court dated 04.10.2010 passed in F.A. No.25 of 2005, wherein the Court granted maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent-Rangabala and her two sons. 4. No maintenance was allowed to Rangabala who was working as a Staff Nurse. In the L.C. record I further find an order of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court dated 04.10.2010 passed in F.A. No.25 of 2005, wherein the Court granted maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent-Rangabala and her two sons. 4. Learned amicus curiae, Mr. Chakraborty appearing for the respondent submit that perhaps the learned Judge, Family Court amalgamated both the criminal proceedings and the divorce proceedings together and passed an order which is not permissible in law. 5. Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Subir Laskar, the elder son of the petitioner and Rangabala, has attained majority and so he is not entitled to get any maintenance. He has also submitted that Rangabala Nath(Laskar), the wife of the petitioner, working as a Staff Nurse and therefore is not entitled to get maintenance. 6. It appears from the L.C. records that there was an order passed by the Division Bench of the then Gauhati High Court in F.A. No.25 of 2005, wherein maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- was allowed to Rangabala Nath(Laskar) as well as two sons of Rangabala Nath(Laskar). Order dated 03.04.2008 passed by the Family Court in a proceeding under Section 127 of CrPC cannot and does not have any force after order dated 04.10.2010 in F.A. No.25 of 2005 was passed by the High Court. 7. Where an order of maintenance is passed by a Civil Court that shall prevail over any order passed by the Criminal Court. It is not understood how the subsequent order was passed by the learned Judge, Family Court in exercise of the power under Section 127 of CrPC. If Subir Laskar, in the meantime attained majority, the petitioner was supposed to file an appropriate application before appropriate Court seeking modification of the order of maintenance. Since maintenance was allowed by the High Court in the First Appeal, the Family Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 127 of CrPC cannot enhance that maintenance or interfere with that order. Moreover, the petition dated 19.12.2011 filed under Section 127 of CrPC was for Subir Laskar alone and not for Rangabala Nath(Laskar). So, the learned Judge, Family Court was absolutely wrong in passing that order enhancing maintenance of Rangabala Nath(Laskar). The order dated 05.09.2012, therefore, cannot sustain and it is set aside and quashed. Moreover, the petition dated 19.12.2011 filed under Section 127 of CrPC was for Subir Laskar alone and not for Rangabala Nath(Laskar). So, the learned Judge, Family Court was absolutely wrong in passing that order enhancing maintenance of Rangabala Nath(Laskar). The order dated 05.09.2012, therefore, cannot sustain and it is set aside and quashed. If Subir Laskar attained majority in the meantime he is not entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC or enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of CrPC. Since there is already an order passed by the High Court granting maintenance and if the petitioner likes to change that order he has to take step according to law in regard to that order. 8. The criminal revision petition accordingly stands disposed of. 9. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.