Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner, sentenced by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Nedumangad, for simple imprisonment for three months under S.488 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as per the order in each of the two petitions filed by the respondent herein, who is the wife of the revision petitioner, for executing an order of maintenance under S.488 (1) Cr. P. C. obtained by her against the husband, challenges the validity of those orders in this revision. 2. Sri. B. Raghunathan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, submits that the impugned orders are neither in accordance with the provisions of S.488 Cr. P. C. nor in tune with the well accepted principles of natural justice. 3. It is not in dispute that the court had directed the revision petitioner who is stated to be a N. M. R. worker to pay maintenance to bis wife (respondent herein). The respondent had filed C. M. P. No. 873 of 1972 dated 29-5-1972 and C. M. P. No. 607 of 1973 dated 15-6-1973 claiming arrears of maintenance, for the period from 11-4-1971 to 11-5-1972 and 11-6-1972 to 11-4-1973 from the revision petitioner. In pursuance of the non-bailable warrant issued by the Additional First Class Magistrate, the revision petitioner was produced in court on 28-6-1973. By separate orders in the said petitions referred to above, the Magistrate sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for failure to pay maintenance for the respective periods, on the further condition that the term of imprisonment would come to an end if payment is made earlier as provided under S.488 (3) Cr. P. C. 4. The contention of the learned counsel is that the order issuing warrant, passed without first issuing notice to the revision petitioner and without holding an enquiry, is illegal. It is pointed out that the provision in S.488 (3) that the Magistrate may issue a warrant notwithstanding the husband's offer to maintain his wife is an indication that the issue of warrant could be ordered only after hearing the person against whom the order of maintenance is sought to be enforced. It is also argued that the provisions contained in Sub-section (6) to S.488 Cr. P. C. also contemplate, if not expressly, at least impliedly, that there should have been a notice to the husband before the issue of warrant. 5. It is also argued that the provisions contained in Sub-section (6) to S.488 Cr. P. C. also contemplate, if not expressly, at least impliedly, that there should have been a notice to the husband before the issue of warrant. 5. I find considerable force in this argument. For one thing, the principles of natural justice require that a man should be allowed to show cause why drastic steps like issue of non-bailable warrant and further steps, if any, required according to law should not be taken against him for the alleged failure on his part to pay maintenance to his wife. Issue of warrant for levying the amount due from the person against whom an order of maintenance under S.488 (1) Cr. P. C. has been passed, would arise only if he fails without sufficient cause to comply with such order in terms of S.488 (3). The proviso to sub-section (3) to S.488 makes it clear that: "... If such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if be is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing This would again mean that the offer to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him could be made by the revision petitioner only if he gets a notice regarding the action proposed to be taken against him. In this case no such opportunity to show cause why warrant should not be issued against him has been given by the Magistrate. Sub-section 6 to S.488 Cr. P.C. lays down that "All evidence under this Chapter (Chap. XXXVI) shall be taken in the presence of the husband or father, as the case may be, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader" This provision also makes it clear that before passing any order the party that would be affected by such order should have an opportunity to be heard and the enquiry should be made in his presence. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that in this case the revision petitioner had offered to pay a sum of Rs. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that in this case the revision petitioner had offered to pay a sum of Rs. 75/-and bad only prayed for a month's time to pay the balance, and that as a matter of fact even the respondent was willing to accept it. Whatever that be, inasmuch as the issue of warrant is without justification and before the issue of warrant no enquiry as required under the provisions of S.488 Cr. P.C. has been made, I set aside the order of the learned Additional First Class Magistrate and direct him to issue notice to the revision petitioner in the first instance and thereafter enquire into the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of S.488 Cr. P.C. For this view I take, I find support in the decisions of the Allahabad High Court and Mysore High Court, reported in Laxmi Narain v. State (AIR. 1959 All. 556) and Padmavathi Bai v. Kalyan Rao (1962 MLJ. Reports, Criminal 510) respectively. The revision is allowed as above. Allowed.