R. K. DASH, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the legality and correctness of the order of the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, in a proceeding under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code whereby he has been directed to pay maintenance to his wife, opposite party herein.

( 2 ) IT is not disputed that the petitioner had married the opposite party according to Hindu rites and customs and after marriage both had been leading a marital life for some time. According to the opposite party, after marriage the petitioner at the instigation of his parents demanded colour T. V. , motor-cycle and cash as dowry and the same having not been satisfied, started illtreating her and even tried to do away with her whereupon she left for her brothers house and has been residing there;

( 3 ) THE petitionerts case, on the other hand, is that the opposite party being a woman of easy virtue has been leading an immoral life, inasmuch as she having extra-marital relationship with her brother-in-law (sisters husband) left the marital aboded on her own accord and therefore, she has forfeited her right to separate maintepance.

( 4 ) THE learned Judge, Family Court heard the case ex parte and allowed the maintenance to the opposite party at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month with effect from January, 1993. The said order was assailed in this Court by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 139 of 1993 and upon hearing, the court allowed the revision and remanded the case for fresh hearing. Thereupon the learned Judge, Family Court on the very day of appearance of the parties allowed the claim of the opposite party in a hot haste and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner moved this court again in Criminal Revision No. 405 of 1994 challenging the said order. Upon hearing the parties, the Court set aside the said order and remanded the case for final disposal within a specified time. Consequent upon remand, the learned Court below proceeded with the hearing, recorded the evidence adduced by the parties and on evaluation of the same, passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month with effect from 15-5-1992 or in the alternative a sum of Rs, 60,000/ - in lump sum as permanent alimony. It is for the third time that the petitioner has approached this Court disowning his liability to provide any maintenance to the opposite party.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised four points in course of argument. Firstly, he urged that principles of audi alteram partem had not been followed by the learned Judge, Family Court while disposing of the case on merit inasmuch as he did not afford any opportunity to the petitioner to advance argument and passed the final order by proponing the date. Secondly, when the petitioner had/has always been ready and willing to keep the opposite party and lead a happy conjugal life, the learned Court below ought not to have allowed the opposite partys claim of maintenance. Thirdly, since it was agreed upon between the parties before the village Panch that neither party would lay any claim for maintenance the very initiation of the proceeding and the consequent orders passed by the learned Court below is illegal and without jurisdiction. Firstly it was contended that the scope of power of the Court under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Codet) is to award monthly maintenance and not permanent alimony in lump sum and. therefore that part of the impugned order allowing a sum of Rs. 60. 000/- in lump sum being contrary to the statutory provision is liable to be set aside.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the opposite party on the other hand supporting the impugned order submitted that it would be evident from record that after conclusion of hearing both parties made their submissions in support of their respective cases, but because the learned Judge. Family Court by advancing the date pronou