JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application praying for quashing of a proceeding under Section 127 of the Code presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas and all orders passed therein. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The opposite party no.2 was granted maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Code in 1989 for herself and for her minor daughter. Subsequently, she filed an application under Section 127 of the Code praying for increase in the amount of maintenance. The same was awarded. The daughter became a major and, in fact, got married in 2003. An application was filed by the husband to reduce the maintenance payable to the wife as the daughter had become major. The petitioner was getting a sum of Rs.1500/- after the last enhancement. The petitioner's case is that she had paid excess amount as maintenance allowance. Subsequently, the wife prayed for an exorbitant sum of Rs.20,000/- as an increased sum under Section 127 of the Code, although the petitioner had retired from his service in the meantime. The petitioner was also aggrieved with the execution cases filed by the wife. As per instruction, the proceeding under Section 127 of the Code is pending at the stage of arguments. 3. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the revision petition. 4. A proceeding for execution of arrears of maintenance is quite different from a proceeding under Section 127 of the Code. This Court cannot look into the question of execution cases as the present revision has been filed to assail the proceeding under Section 127 of the Code. 5. Admittedly, the proceeding under Section 127 of the Code is pending at the stage of arguments. There cannot be any reason for the petitioner to pre-empt what would happen during passing of the final order on such application. Even if the petitioner had any apprehension, the petitioner could not have by-passed the proceeding of the Court under Section 127 of the Code and challenged the proceeding before this Court on the same grounds that could be agitated before the said learned Court. 6. There is no merit whatsoever in this application. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed. 7. There shall however be no order as to costs. 8. 6. There is no merit whatsoever in this application. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed. 7. There shall however be no order as to costs. 8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.