ORDER P. Govinda Menon, J. 1. The husband against whom an order for maintenance for the wife and three children had been passed in M. C. 2 of 1961 presented a petition to the District Magistrate of Kozhikode that he had filed a suit R. S. 43 of 1961 before the Civil Judge, S. D. Ratnagiri for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife and had obtained a decree and claiming cancellation of the order in respect of the maintenance awarded to the wife. The learned District Magistrate dismissed the petition. The correctness of this finding is challenged in this Revision Petition. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision of the Civil Court ordering the wife to live with the husband-petitioner is binding on the wife and as such the District Magistrate ought to have cancelled the order of maintenance granted to the wife under S.489(2) Crl. P. C. Sub-section (2) of S.489 Crl. P. C., is in these terms: " x x x x (2) Where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under S.488 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be, vary the same accordingly." 3. The argument is that the effect of the order of the Civil Court granting restitution of conjugal rights would automatically put an end to an order made by the Magistrate under S.488. But under S.489(2) the Magistrate has to consider whether in consequence of the Civil Court's decision he ought to cancel or modify his order. He has to exercise his discretion judicially and he is bound to satisfy himself that the applicant is really prepared to give effect to the order of the Civil Court, namely, to live with his wife. The mere fact that the Civil Court has satisfied on the point does not justify the Magistrate in surrendering his own discretion. 4. Reference may be made to the decision in Fakruddin Shamsuddin Saiyed v. Bai Janab (AIR 1944 Bom. 11). Beaumont C. J. held : "Under S.489(2) the Magistrate has a discretion to cancel or modify his order in consequence of the Civil Court's decision. The Magistrate's discretion under S.489(2) must no doubt be exercised judicially, but it is a real discretion. Reference may be made to the decision in Fakruddin Shamsuddin Saiyed v. Bai Janab (AIR 1944 Bom. 11). Beaumont C. J. held : "Under S.489(2) the Magistrate has a discretion to cancel or modify his order in consequence of the Civil Court's decision. The Magistrate's discretion under S.489(2) must no doubt be exercised judicially, but it is a real discretion. It is not correct to say that the Magistrate is bound to cancel the maintenance order made in favour of the wife under S.488, because a Civil Court has made an order for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the husband. The Magistrate is entitled, and indeed bound, to satisfy himself that the husband is bona fide prepared to give effect to the order of the Civil Court; that he is prepared to offer the wife a home which she ought to accept. The mere fact that the Civil Court is satisfied on that point does not justify the Magistrate in surrendering his own discretion; he must be satisfied. The Magistrate is entitled to decline to revoke the maintenance order under S.488, when there is no evidence before him as to what home the husband was prepared to offer the wife". 5. To the same effect is the decision in Pavakkal v. Athappa Goundan (AIR 1925 Mad. 1218). That is also a case where a decree was obtained for restitution of conjugal rights. It was held that under S.489(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as amended, it is competent for a Magistrate to cancel or vary an order of maintenance, if he thinks that it should be cancelled or varied in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court. But where in the circumstances of a particular case the Magistrate is satisfied that the counter petitioner did not wish to have his wife back, and his object in getting the decree was merely to get the maintenance order cancelled, the court will be justified in refusing to cancel the order. 6. The petitioner's learned counsel pointed out the decisions in Mrs. Grisilda Titus v. Mr. Louts Titus (AIR 1947 Mad. 425); Tarak Nath Dhar v. Sheharani Dhar (AIR 1949 Cal. 87) and Khan Bahadur v. Mt. Ilahi Noor (AIR 1945 Peshawar 53). 6. The petitioner's learned counsel pointed out the decisions in Mrs. Grisilda Titus v. Mr. Louts Titus (AIR 1947 Mad. 425); Tarak Nath Dhar v. Sheharani Dhar (AIR 1949 Cal. 87) and Khan Bahadur v. Mt. Ilahi Noor (AIR 1945 Peshawar 53). But in those decisions the discretion vested in the Magistrate has been recognised and when, as in the case, the learned Magistrate has given sufficient reasons for the discretion exercised by him for not agreeing to cancel the order of maintenance, I do not think this court sitting in revision would be justified in interfering with the order so passed. In the result the order passed by the District Magistrate is confirmed and the revision petition is dismissed.