' This is a criminal revision petition by /list. Fahmeeda Ilegurn challenging the validity of the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Lahore dated the 21st September 1966, whereby he varied the order of the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore, dated the 30th July, 1966, to the extent the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs, 30 per menses payable by Nisar Ahmed Qureshi, respondent, to the petitioner would be recoverable from the 30th July, 1966, the date of order of the learned trial Magistrate and not from the 21st March, 1965, the date of filing of the application by the petitioner as had been directed by the learned trial Magistrate,
2. The parties were married on 10th May, 1964. Their relations having become strained, the petitioner, on 21st March, 1965, moved an application under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for securing maintenance at the rate of Rs, 70 per menses which the respondent had agreed to pay her at the time of solemnization of marriage.
3. The learned Magistrate directed the respondent to pay her maintenance from the 21st March, 1965, at the rate of Rs, 30 per mensem by his order dated the 30th July, 1966. On the Respondent's revision petition the learned Additional District Magiyfate, Lahore, modified the learned Magistrate's order so as to make the order of payment of maintenance allowance operative from the 30th July, 1966, instead of from the 21st March, 1965. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred the instant revision petition. She also prayed for enhancement of the rate of maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs, 70 per menses.
4. Besides being without jurisdiction the impugned order of the learned Additional District Magistrate is improper. The learned Additional District Magistrate could not have on his own disturbed the learned Magistrate's order in revision. The reason given by him for not allowing the maintenance allowance to run from the date of application of the petitioner is that the respondent was "a machine man in the Railways and according to the slips of pay produced by him he was drawing Rs, 80 per mensem". This is certainly not a valid justification for disallowing the petitioner to draw allowance from the date of her application. The impugned order of the learned Additional District Magistrate, is therefore, set aside and the order passed by the learned Magistrate 1st Class will hold the field. No case for enhancement of allowance was made out by the petitioner.