JUDGMENT - PANDHYE, J.:---This reference arises out of proceedings under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant in the original Court, who is the wife, had filed an application for grant of maintenance against the original applicant Chintaman, her husband. The applicant examined herself and was also cross-examined on behalf of the non-applicant. Thereafter the case was adjourned, and on that adjourned hearing the non-applicant remained absent. The Court waited till about 4 p.m. and then passed an order on the evidence as it stood before it, viz. the evidence of the applicant, wife. It appears that subsequent to the passing of the order the Court received a telegram from the non-applicant about his inability to attend the Court but by that time the order had already been passed. The non-applicant therefore made an application for setting aside the ex parte order and giving him an opportunity to defend him. That application was more or less summarily rejected by the lower Court. 2. Against this, a revision application was filed by the original non-applicant before the Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Judge disagreed with the Magistrate and referred the case with his recommendations to this Court for setting aside the order dismissing the Misc. Application No. 4 of 1974 and for directing the Magistrate to restore the said application and dispose of the same or to issue a notice to the non-applicant and to give an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has given good reasons for setting aside the said order, and I have no reason to take a different view. The original non-applicant ought to get an opportunity to explain as to why he could not remain present on the date of the hearing and if the reason given by him is found to be just and proper then he could be entitled to be heard further in the case. However, while accepting the reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge I think it proper to put the non-applicant Chintaman to terms. 4. The litigation is somewhat protracted. The original application for maintenance was filed on 9-2-73. She is living with her parents and the non-applicant has not made any arrangement for her maintenance. However, while accepting the reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge I think it proper to put the non-applicant Chintaman to terms. 4. The litigation is somewhat protracted. The original application for maintenance was filed on 9-2-73. She is living with her parents and the non-applicant has not made any arrangement for her maintenance. Whether she is justified in living separate or not is a matter which can be decided on merits at the time of trial, but she being the wife of the non-applicant, there is a duty on the non-applicant to provide for her maintenance and I direct that as an interim arrangement without prejudice to the pleas of either side the non-applicant Chintaman will pay Rs. 600/- to Shakuntala, the wife and further pay a monthly allowance to her at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month commencing from 1st of March, 1975. The amount of Rs. 600/- as well as the monthly allowance for the month of March 1975 should be paid within a period of 15 days from the date of the order and the subsequent monthly allowance is to be paid by the 10th of each subsequent month. The payments of this amount will be condition precedent for the non-applicant Chintaman to take part in the proceedings. 5. Since the case has been too much delayed, it is directed that the learned Magistrate will give precedence to this case and will dispose it of as expeditiously as possible. 6. With these observations this reference is accepted. -----