( 1 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 17/08/1984 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (court No. 17) Ahmedabad in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 37 of 1984 the petitioner has filed this Revision Application.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner-wife that the Judicial Magistrate First Class Mehmedabad had passed an order in her favour under sec. 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Old) and had awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 110. 00 per month. She is residing at Ahmedabad but she was compelled to file application for maintenance before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mehmedabad District Kaira because her husband was residing at Mehmedabad. After the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code under section 126 of the Code she is entitled to file an application for maintenance where she is residing. She therefore filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 37 of 1984 before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad under sec. 127 of the Code for enhancement of maintenance because of change of circumstances. increase in price and increase in income of opponent No. 1

( 3 ) OPPONENT No. 1 objected to the said application by filing an application exhibit 3 wherein he contended that the Court at Ahmedabad had no jurisdiction to deal with the said matter. The said contention of opponent No 1 was upheld by Metropolitan Magistrate (Court No. 17) by referring to A. I. R. Commentaries oil Criminal Procedure Code wherein it is mentioned that the maintenance application for enhancement was not maintainable in any other Court except the Court which passed the said order. It should be noted that he has not discussed any decision. Against the said judgment and order the petitioner has filed this Revision Application.

( 4 ) RULE was issued to the other side. Opponent No. 1 remained present on one date subsequently the remained absent. Thereafter as the question of law was require to be decided the learned advocate Shri A D. Shah was asked to appear as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Opponent No. 1.

( 5 ) THE question which requires determination in this case is whether the application for enhancement of maintenance under sec. 127 (1) of the Code is maintainable in the district Where wife resides or whether it is maintainable only before the Court which passed the order of maintenance under sec. 125 of the Code

( 6 ) SEC. 125 of the Code prescribes who can file an application for maintenance. in which set of circumstances the maintenance should or should not he awarded and from which date it should be awarded. Sec. 126 of the Code provides for procedure of deciding the maintenance application. The said section reads as under: "126 Procedure. (1) Proceedings under sec. 125 may be taken against any person in any district- (A) where he is or (B) where he or his wife resides or (C) where he last resided with his wife or as the case may be with the mother of the Illegitimate child. (2) All evidence in such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made or when his personal attendance is dispensed with. in the presence of his pleader and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons cases:provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is usually avoiding service or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court the Magistrate may proceed to bear and determine the case ex parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the dale thereof subject to such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper. (3) The Court in dealing with applications under section 125 shall have the power to make such order as to costs as may be just. This sec. 126 in terms provides that the wife is entitled to file applica