SUDHIR SINGH, J.

In the present application, challenge is made to the order dated 10.02.2016, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger, in connection with Maint. Case No. 352 of 2013, by which the petitioner has been directed to pay monthly allowance of Rs. 15,000/- for the interim maintenance of his wife(opposite party no. 2) in addition to the amount of Rs. 15,000/- being paid monthly as per the order of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16224 of 2013. Initially, against the order under challenge, a Miscellaneous Appeal bearing No. 349/2016 was filed by the petitioner (appellant herein), whereupon the matter was placed before the Bench on 09.05.2016, regarding maintainability of the appeal against the order of interim maintenance passed by the Family Court, in terms of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’). The learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to convert the Miscellaneous Appeal into an application under Section 482 of the Code, whereupon such permission was accorded and necessary corrections were made. After conversion, the matter was taken up on 19.05.2016 by a learned Single Judge as a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code, but taking note of the order dated 09.05.2016, the learned Single Judge asked the Registry to place the matter before the appropriate Bench, thus again this matter has come up before us, on the orders of the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice (as he then was).

The ‘issue’ before us for determination, is, the maintainability of application under Section 482 of the Code against the order of the interim maintenance passed by the Family Court during the pendency of the proceedings of maintenance, under Chapter IX of the Code.

Prior to, Amendment Act 2001 (Act 50 of 2001) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 125 of the Code did not expressly empower the Magistrate to pass an interim order of maintenance, though having regard to the nature of jurisdiction to pass order for maintenance, it was held that the Magistrate had implied power to make such order of interim maintenance.

In the case of Savetri Vs. Govind Singh, reported in AIR 1986 SC 984, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there was no provision in the Code authorizing a Magistrate to make an interim order of maintenance, but the Code also did not expressly prohibit the making of such an order. Hence, considering the aim and object behind the legislation, His Lordship Justice VENKATARAMIAH (as he then was) rightly observed:

“In view of the foregoing it is the duty of the Court to interpret the provisions in Chapter IX of the Code in such a way that the construction placed on them would not defeat the very object of the legislation. In the absence of any express prohibition, it is appropriate to construe the provisions in Chapter IX as conferring an implied power on the Magistrate to direct the person against whom an application is made under Section 125 of the Code to pay some reasonable sum by way of maintenance to the applicant pending final disposal of the application. It is quite common that application made under Section 125 of the Code also take several months for being disposed of finally. In order to enjoy the fruits of the proceeding under Section 125, the applicant should be alive till the date of the final order and that the applicant can do in a large number of cases only if an order for payment of interim maintenance is passed by the Court. Every court must be deemed to possess by necessary intendment all such powers as are necessary to make its orders effective. This principle is embodied in the maxim ‘ubi a liquid conceditur, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (where anything is conceded, there is conceded also anything without which the thing itself cannot exist) Vide Earl Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law 1959 Edn. P. 1797. Whenever anything is required to be done by law and it is found impossible to do t