Section 488 of the CrPC and the 1956 Act can coexist and be administered simultaneously as they deal with different aspects of maintenance and do not conflict with each other.

Ramratna Singh, J.

1. The opposite party is the first wife of the petitioner. She made an application before the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate of Katihar under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance on the ground that he had neglected her and refused to maintain her. The petitioner was asked to show cause against this prayer of his wife. He asserted that, as she was an idiot and mentally deranged, he took a second wife in 1947 with her consent and thereafter the opposite party was living separate from him by mutual consent. The learned Magistrate, however, rejected the assertion of the petitioner and allowed a monthly allowance of Rs. 40.00 to the opposite party with effect from the 26th September, 1960, on the ground that he had neglected her and refused to maintain her. An application in revision against this order was dismissed on merits by the Additional Sessions Judge of Purnea. Hence, the present application in revision to this Court.

2. Mr. B.C. Ghose, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that an unusual procedure had been adopted by the learned Magistrate and, therefore, the order granting maintenance to the opposite party was illegal and improper. The application under Sec. 488 Cr. P. C. was filed on the 24th August, 1959, but it was not signed by anybody. On that date a notice was issued to the husband to show cause why maintenance should not be allowed to the lady. On the 27th May 1960, both parties were present, cause was shown by the husband and the court directed the parties to adduce evidence on the 27th June 1960. On this date, i.e. on 27th June 1960, the case was adjourned, as the trying magistrate was absent. On the 23rd July 1960, the following order was passed.

"O. P. present examined, cross examined and discharged 3 witnesses for the O. P. A petition has been tiled for further evidence. Put up on 9-8-60. No further time will ordinarily be allowed".

It is not clear whether the wife was present in court on that date as the order is silent on that point. On the 9th August, 1960, both parties were present and more witnesses were examined on behalf of the husband. It is not necessary to mention the contents of the next two orders except that on the 24th August 1960, a petition was filed on behalf of the wife for permission to sign the application under Sec. 488 Cr. P. C., and, as the omission to put her signature thereon was unintentional, the learned Magistrate allowed her to sign the application.

Mr. Ghose submitted that the husband was not informed about this petition nor was he heard before this petition was allowed but this irregularity was of no significance. On the next date, i.e. on the 29th August 1960 which had been fixed for "orders", a petition was filed on behalf of the wife to examine her and the President of the Katihar Municipal Board and a medical practitioner of Katihar Dr. Parasar Bhattacharji, as court witnesses. This application was allowed and the ease was adjourned to 13-9-1960. It is remarkable that no complaint was made on 29-8-60 on behalf of the husband about the order passed on the 24th August, 1960, allowing the wife to sign the application under Section 488. On the 18th September, 1960, the husband was absent and his lawyer also did not appear before the Magistrate in spite of repeated messages sent to him by the learned Magistrate; and both the court witnesses were examined on that date. Mr. Ghose submitted that the husband or his lawyer did not appear on the 13th September 1960 as they had no information about the application or order to examine court witnesses. In this connection, he referred to the order of the 24th August, 1960, in which the magistrate directed the case to be put up on the 29th August 1960 for orders and submitted that it was not necessary for the husband to be present in court on that date; but there is no reason why his lawyer would not be present in court on that date.

Moreover, the order for examining two c