Pradyat Kumar Sen, J. - (1.) This application under Sections 401 & 482 of the Cr. P. C. is at the instance of the husband/petitioner is directed against an order dated 10.8.2000 passed by the learned A. C. J. M, Tamluk rejecting the prayer fop releasing this petitioner who happens to be the husband. In a proceeding under Section 125(3) of the Cr. P.C, the husband was brought under arrest as he failed to make any payment. It is submitted before me that the husband has been in custody for more than eight months and accordingly, the husband approached the Magistrate for his release but the Magistrate on a misinterpretation of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1) 1999 Cr LJ 5060, rejected the prayer of the husband.
(2.) Now on perusal of the said judgment, I find that the Supreme Court observed that by no stretch of imagination the Magistrate can be permitted to impose sentence for more than one month. The Supreme Court observed that the wife has no remedy but can approach again the Magistrate for similar relief, i.e., for relief as permitted under Section 125(3). Thus, I find that the impugned order by which the learned A. C. J. M. refused to release the husband was illegal and he passed the order against the judgment of the Supreme Court as referred to above. It is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
(3.) Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The wife can approach the learned Magistrate for further relief as has been ensured in the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above.;