- (1.) PALOK Basu, J. The only ground urged is that the Magistrate had no power to grant monthly interim maintenance allowance to the wife during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P. C. Sri Virendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the provisions of Cr. P. C. do not offer any scope for interim maintenance allowance. The utmost that can be said is that the Hon. Supreme Court's decision reported in the case of Smt. Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, 1985 ACC 447 : AIR 1985 SC 984, if interpret ed to apply, should be confined to the demand t f a consolidated sum at one stroke to the wife and that ruling can 'and should not be interpreted to mean that the monthly interim maintenance allowance can be asked to be paid by the husband to the wife during the pendency of main proceedings Section 125, Cr. P. C. In support of this argument reliance was placed upon an order of this Court dated 13-7-1989 in Writ Petition No. 12792 of 1989 - Dhanvir v. Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, By the said order this Court had directed Rs, 1,000 consolidated amount to be paid to the wife and had directed, as interim measure, that proceedings for realization of the amount shall remain stayed if the consolidated sum of Rs. 1,000 was paid. There is no force in this petition in view of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant. If the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Savitri, (supra) is interpreted in terms, no interim maintenance allowance during the proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P. C. can be awarded. The basis of the judgment, however, appears to be that-the provisions under the relevant Chapter of Cr. P. C, are intended to provide for preventive remedy for seeming the maintenance which can be granted quickly and in deserving cases from the date of application itself. The rate of maintenance that can be awarded is also limited even though the law governing the parties a competent civil court can grant a reasonable sum. The civil courts have inherent powers to grant mainte nance allowance pending disposal of the suit for maintenance. Their Lordihips of the Supreme Court in the above case held :- "in the absence of any express prohibition it is appropriate to construe the provisions 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 Cods to pay same 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 dis posal of finally. In order to enjoy the fruits of the proceedings 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 liquid conceited, conciliator sine quo trespasses non protest. (Where anything is conceded there is conceded also anything without which the thing itself cannot exist ). (Vide Earl Jewett's Dictionary of English Law 1959 End, 1797 ). Whenever anything is required to be done by law and it is found impossible to do that thing unless something not authorized in express terms be also done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. "
(2.) THE Supreme Court has then laid down the following rule ; "having regard to the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the magis trate under Section 125 of the Code, we feel that the said provi sions should be interpreted as conferring power by necessary implication on the magistrate to pass an order directing a person against whom an application is made under to pay a reasonable sum by way of interim maintenance subject to the other conditions referred to therein pending final disposal of the applications. In taking this view we have also taken note of the provisions of Sec tion 7 (2) (a) of the Family Courts A, t, 1984 (Act No. 66 of 1984) passed recently by Parliament proposing to transfer the jurisdiction exercisable by magistrate under Section 125 of the Code to the Family Courts constituted under the said Act. " The words 'a reasonable sum' must be read with the original power conferred upon the magistrate by the said provisions contained in Section 125, Cr. P. C. It follows that monthly allowance can be paid as an interim arrange ment. To interpret the words of the Supreme Court in a different way is likely to frustrate the purpose of the said ruling. Lastly, it was said that a sum of Rs. 250 awarded as interim mainten ance allowance was excessive. On the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the argument has force.
(3.) THIS application is dismissed summarily. Application dismissed. .;