ORDER : Mr. Banwari Lal Sharma, J. 1. The present Revision Petition is preferred assailing the impugned order dated 12.01.2017 passed by Learned Judge Family Court, Dausa in Criminal Misc. Application No. 88/2016 (Heena Bano & others v. Raheel @ Habeeb) whereby Learned Court below allowed the application of respondents submitted under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C and awarded sentence for 11 months civil imprisonment for committing default in payment of maintenance amount for 16 months. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondents submitted an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before Learned Family Court, Dausa which was allowed vide order dated 27.07.2016 and it was ordered that petitioner shall pay of Rs. 4000/- per month as maintenance to respondents. Thereafter, respondents filed an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. before Learned Family Court which was allowed vide order dated 15.10.2016 and one month civil imprisonment was awarded to present petitioner for committing default in payment of maintenance amount for 16 months. Thereafter, an another application in the same proceedings was moved by the respondents under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. on 26.11.2016 before Learned Court below which was allowed by the Learned Court below and the civil imprisonment which was awarded for one month was modified to 11 months civil jail. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.01.2017, petitioner filed this Revision Petition. 3. Learned Counsel for petitioner Ms. Akanksha Saxena submits that Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Haricharan v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 612/2007) decided on 11.11.2014 and in the matter of Ram Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 613/2007) decided on 20.11.2014 observed that imprisonment for non-payment of amount of maintenance cannot be beyond period of one month, rather it can be for one month and until payment is made sooner. She further submits that once Learned Family Court decided the application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. and awarded sentence for civil imprisonment for one month for default period from 18.03.2015 to 27.07.2016 then Learned Family Court has no right or jurisdiction to enhance the sentence for the same period in the same proceedings, therefore this Revision Petition may be allowed and impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra Learned Counsel for respondents/applicants Mr. 4. Per contra Learned Counsel for respondents/applicants Mr. Ritesh Jain supported the impugned order and submitted that since petitioner committed default for payment for 16 months maintenance amount and Learned Court below awarded sentence for only one month which was rightly enhanced. As per Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. Court should have punished petitioner for one month for each months default. Learned Court below has shown lenancy for awarding sentence for 11 months only instead of 16 months, therefore this Revision Petition may be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the respondents and went through the available record and impugned order. 6. Section 362 Cr.P.C. reads as under :- “362. Court not to alter judgment. - Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.” 7. Since in earlier application submitted by respondents Learned Family Court after hearing the parties decided the same and awarded sentence for one month simple imprisonment for committing default in payment of maintenance amount for 16 months, therefore in the light of aforesaid provision, Learned Family Court has no jurisdiction to enhance the sentence from one month to 11 months in the same proceedings. 8. Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Haricharan v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 612/2007) decided on 11.11.2014 and in the matter of Ram Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 613/2007) decided on 20.11.2014 observed that imprisonment for non-payment of amount of maintenance cannot be beyond period of one month, rather it can be for one month and until payment is made sooner, therefore the impugned order needs to be interfered for imprisonment of the petitioner beyond a period of one month. 9. As discussed above, since once Learned Court below ordered to award sentence for one month civil imprisonment against the present petitioner then in same proceedings after filing another application Court should not have awarded sentence for 11 months civil imprisonment instead of one month civil imprisonment. Thus, this Revision Petition is allowed and impugned order is quashed and set aside.