V. GOPALASWAMY, J, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is preferred against the order dated 10. 12. 1986 of the learned S. D. J. M. , Parlakhemundi, in Misc. Case No. 94 of 1985, a proceeding under Section 125, Cr. P. C. , sentencing the present petitioner-husband to undergo simple Imprisonment tin 9. 12. 1987 or until payment of maintenance dues to his wife (the present opposite party), in pursuance of his order dated 3. 9. 1985.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is in violation of the provisions of Section 125 (3), Cr. P. C. , and assailed it on the following two grounds: (a) First, that the sentence of imprisonment could not have been passed without due execution of the distress warrant against the petitioner. (2) Secondly, that under Section 125 (3), Cr. P. C. the maximum sentence that the Magistrate could have passed is only for a period of one month.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the opposite party-wife, Mr. S. K. Sahoo, relying on the decisions, which are considered below contended that the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not valid grounds.

( 4 ) NOW I proceed to consider the validity of