THE MAGISTRATE HAS THE IMPLIED POWER TO AWARD INTERIM MAINTENANCE PENDING DISPOSAL OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 125 CR. PC. IN CASE OF DEFAULT TO PAY THE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 12 MONTHS, THE PARTY WHO WANTS TO ENFORCE THE ORDER SHOULD FILE APPLICATION FOR EACH SUCH BREACH TO REALISE THE SAID AMOUNT AS DIRECTED BY THE MAGISTRATE.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against the order dated 6. 11. 99 whereby the revision-petitioner was asked to pay an amount of Rs. 4000/- as maintenance towards the opposite party.

( 2 ) THE essential facts leading to this revisional application is as follows:

( 3 ) THE revision-petitioner married the opposite party on 2nd July,1995 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. After such lawful marriage both the parties remained as husband and wife for some time. Thereafter there was a family dissension, as a result of which the private respondent was forced to leave the matrimonial home and lived with her parents. Since she did not have sufficient means to maintain herself, she filed an application under section 125 Cr. PC against the present revision-petitioner and, inter alia, prayed for payment of interim maintenance. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Howrah was, however, inclined to allow the prayer of the private respondent by directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 250/- per month. Since the petitioner defaulted in paying the interim maintenance as directed by the learned Magistrate, the respondent had, therefore, preferred an execution case being Execution Case No. 12/99 before the Court below under section 128 Cr. PC. The revision petitioner filed a separate application in Execution Case No. 12/99 but the learned Court as submitted by the revision-petitioner, did not take such application into consideration and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 4000/- towards the arrear maintenance. Therefore, being aggrieved by and affected with such order of the learned Magistrate this revision-petition has been filed.

( 4 ) THE learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has strongly contended that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to award maintenance for more than a period of 12 months even if it was by way of the interim maintenance of final order. The learned Court below has erroneously come to the conclusion that since it was an interim maintenance. therefore, there was no period of limitation. So far the power of the Court to award interim maintenance is concerned, although the statute does not provide specifically any power upon the Magistrate but it has been decided by the apex Court in the case of Smt. Dsbiyti v. Govind Singh Rawat reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 984 wherein it has been held as follows :"in view of the foregoing it is the duty of the Court to interpret the provisions in Chap 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 applications made under section 125 of the Code also take several months for being disposed of finally. In order to enjoy the fruits of the proceedings under section 125, the applicant should be alive till the date of 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 take its orders effective. This principle is embodied in the maxim 'ibi aliquid concediture, 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. 1897 ). Whenever anything is required to be done by law and it is found impossible to do that thing unless something not authorised in express terms be also done then that something else will be supplied by necessary