maintenance. Under the above circumstances, it is clear that the self-same documents, now sought to be introduced into evidence in the petition for enforcement of the order of maintenance could not have been relevant for the purpose of enquiry, when they were already considered and rejected by the trial court and the revisional court, while granting and confirming the maintenance. Mere reiteration of the original talaknama by any subsequent notice in 2006 could not have made any difference to enforcement of the original order of maintenance and therefore, the order of the trial court does not appear to be susceptible to exercise of any inherent jurisdiction of this court. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of maintenance continuing to be in force, it is always open to seek appropriate remedies provided by law to have the said order cancelled or varied or modified due to any change of circumstances under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any such other appropriate provisions to stall the enforcement of such order of maintenance instead of attempting to do the same by introduction of documents relating to a talak, which were rejected by the trial court and the revisional court.
