JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is directed against the order dated 7.2.1976 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, maintaining the order of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, dated 1.5.75 under section 125 (3), Cr. P. C. 2. It will be proper to recall a few facts before coming to the point in controversy in the present revision petition. The non-petitioner Smt. Rameshwari moved an application under section 488, Cr. P. C. (old) against the present petitioner claiming maintenance for herself and her daughter. The said application was resisted by the present petitioner, but ultimately on 30th March, 1974, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, awarded the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 80/- p.m., for the non-petitioner and Rs. 50/- p.m. for the female child with effect from the date of the order. Both the parties went in revision against the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, rejected the present petitioners revision and allowed the non-petitioners revision and modified the order for payment of maintenance with effect from the date of application vide his order 6.2.1975. The present petitioner further moved this Court against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, but the revision was rejected by this Court on 30th June, 1976. On 26.2.1975 the non-petitioner submitted an application under section 125(3), Cr.P.C. (New), in which she prayed that a sum of Rs. 11,440/- have become due upto 18.2.1975 and the same has not been paid by the present petitioner deliberately, though he had sufficient means to pay and a prayer was made that the said amount may be recovered from the present petitioner and paid to her. On presentation of this application the Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, passed an order on 1.3.1975 to issue warrant of recovery under section 125 (3), Cr. P. C. (New). It was also recorded that the application is within a year. Instead of issuing warrant of attachment, it appears that warrant of arrest was issued and on 13.3.1975 he was produced before the Magistrate. The present petitioner was then enlarged on bail. An objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner that an opportunity of hearing be given to him and further proceedings under section 125 (3), Cr. P. C. (New) may not be taken till then, but the learned Magistrate over-ruled the objection by his order dated 1-5-1975. The present petitioner was then enlarged on bail. An objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner that an opportunity of hearing be given to him and further proceedings under section 125 (3), Cr. P. C. (New) may not be taken till then, but the learned Magistrate over-ruled the objection by his order dated 1-5-1975. The learned Magistrate observed that the present petitioner was given time to bring stay order from the High Court, as it was expressed that he had preferred a revision petition against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, dated 6.2.1975, but no such order was produced. Thereafter, an application was moved by the present petitioner that he is prepared to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,000/-, but the same may not be paid to the present non-petitioner. In this connection it was observed by the learned Magistrate that such a condition cannot be imposed under section 125, Cr. P. C. (New), and it appears that the present petitioner, without any reason, does not want to make any payment by imposing such a condition. The learned Magistrate also stated in his order dated 1.5.1975 that warrant of attachment was also issued, but the same has not been successfully executed. As the present petitioner has moved an application for part payment of maintenance allowance, from which it appears that the present petitioner deliberately does not want to make any payment and so ordered for sending the present petitioner to one months imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the order of the learned Magistrate the present petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, but was unsuccessful. Hence, he has approached this Court under section 401 read with section 482, Cr. P. C. 3. At the very out set it may be observed that second revision to this Court is not competent and is barred under section 399 (3), Cr. P. C. The present petitioner has been unsuccessful in his revision petition before the Sessions. This being so it is not open to him to prefer a revision petition in this Court. On behalf of the present petitioner a prayer is made that the revision petition may be treated as an application under section 482, Cr. P. C., as there are good grounds for invoking the inherent powers of this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is heard as an application under section 482, Cr. P. C. 4. On behalf of the present petitioner a prayer is made that the revision petition may be treated as an application under section 482, Cr. P. C., as there are good grounds for invoking the inherent powers of this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is heard as an application under section 482, Cr. P. C. 4. I have heard Shri B. Adwani for the petitioner. No body is present on behalf of the non-petitioner. 5. Mr. Adwani contended that the learned Magistrate seriously erred in ordering issue of warrant of recovery on presentation of the application under section 125 (3), Cr.P.C. A notice to show cause ought to have been issued as to why warrant of recovery be not issued for realisation of the maintenance allowance. Without issuing the notice to show cause, the present petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to place before the Magistrate as to why compliance of the order of maintenance was not made by him. Warrant of recovery could only have been issued when the present petitioner would have failed without sufficient cause to comply with the order. In support of his contention Mr. Adwani placed reliance on the decisions Laxmi Narain v. State (AIR 1959 Allahabad 556 ), Padmavathi Bai v. Kalyan Rao (1962 (2) Cri.L.J. (Mysore) 706) and Appukuttan v. Savithri & another (1974 K.L.T. 17) . 6. I have carefully considered the contention of the learned counsel. A question arises as to whether under sub-section (3) of section 125, Cr. P. C., a notice is required to be given before effecting recovery of the amount of maintenance awarded under section 125, Cr. P.C. It would be proper to reproduce the relevant provision contained in sub-section (3) of section 125, Cr. P. C. "125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. P. C., a notice is required to be given before effecting recovery of the amount of maintenance awarded under section 125, Cr. P.C. It would be proper to reproduce the relevant provision contained in sub-section (3) of section 125, Cr. P. C. "125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. (1) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (2) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each months allowance remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made : Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due : Provided further 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 he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation : If a husband has contracted marriage with another women or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him. (4) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (5) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 7. From the perusal of the above provision it would appear that the Magistrate is empowered to issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines in case the person ordered to pay maintenance, fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order. The Magistrate has to satisfy himself that the person so ordered has failed to comply with the order of the maintenance without sufficient cause. How and in what manner the satisfaction is to be arrived at ? The Magistrate has to satisfy himself that the person so ordered has failed to comply with the order of the maintenance without sufficient cause. How and in what manner the satisfaction is to be arrived at ? This satisfaction can only be arrived at after issuing notice to show cause to the person, who has been ordered to make payment of the amount of maintenance. Sufficient cause is required to be shown by such a person. Without issuing notice there would be no material before the Magistrate to see as to whether any sufficient cause was available with the person, who has been ordered to make payment of maintenance. Though the language of sub-section (3) no where lays down that a notice is required to be given before issuing a warrant for levying the amount due, but from the phraseology of this provision it appears to be implicit that a notice to show cause should be given before issuing a warrant for levying the amount. If the main provision of sub-section (3) of section 125, Cr. P. C., is read along with its second proviso, it would be all the more evident that notice has been issued before issuing a warrant. Second proviso contemplates that the person who had been ordered to pay maintenance, may offer to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him. This offer may be examined under the main provision. After considering this offer the Magistrate may or may not pass an order for levying the amount of maintenance. 8. In the decisions cited by Shri Adwani the point in question was as to whether before enforcing of the order, a notice under section 488 (3), Cr. P. C. (Old) is necessary ? sub-section (3) of section 488, Cr. P. C. (Old) was analogous with the present provision contained in section 125 (3), Cr. P.C. (New). In the Allahabad Case (supra) no notice was issued by the Magistrate and no inquiry as to the sufficient cause was held before issuing warrant of levying an amount. It was observed that the order of the Magistrate was illegal and was set aside. P.C. (New). In the Allahabad Case (supra) no notice was issued by the Magistrate and no inquiry as to the sufficient cause was held before issuing warrant of levying an amount. It was observed that the order of the Magistrate was illegal and was set aside. As regards the provision of sub-Section (3) section 488 it was observed that though it is not said in so many words that before issuing a warrant for levying the amount due, the Magistrate must hold an enquiry in the presence of the husband, that is necessarily the intention of the Legislature. In the first place, the magistrate can issue a warrant only if he finds that the husband failed without sufficient cause to comply with the order ; consequently an enquiry whether the failure was for sufficient cause or not must be held and the enquiry must be made in the presence of the husband. It was further observed that:- "The provision that the Magistrate may issue a warrant notwithstanding the husband's offer to maintain his wife itself contemplates that the offer has been made before the issue of warrant. The surest way of enquiring that the husband has been afforded an opportunity of making such an offer before a warrant is issued by issuing a notice to him to show cause why a warrant should not be issued he is then expected to appear in court and make the offer and the Magistrate will consider whether the wifes refusal to accept it is just or not." 9. This case has been subsequently followed by the Mysore High Court in Padmavathi Bai's case (supra) and it was held that notice to comply with the order must precede issuing of warrant. The Kerala High Court had had also an occasion to consider this very question in Appukutan's case and the same view has been endorsed and the reliance was placed on the Allahabad and Mysore High Court's decisions (supra). For arriving at the same conclusion support was further taken from the provision contained in sub-section (6) of section 488, Cr.P.C. (Old). 10. I have already considered the language of sub-section (3) of section 125, Cr.P. C., above. For the reasons, which I have considered above, I am in agreement with the view taken in the above three decisions. For arriving at the same conclusion support was further taken from the provision contained in sub-section (6) of section 488, Cr.P.C. (Old). 10. I have already considered the language of sub-section (3) of section 125, Cr.P. C., above. For the reasons, which I have considered above, I am in agreement with the view taken in the above three decisions. I may also observe that the present petitioner raised an objection of an opportunity being given to him, soon after his appearance in the Court. In terms of section 125 (3), Cr. P.C. (New) he should have been afforded an opportunity and he should have been called to explain as to why the compliance of the order was not made by him. But from the proceedings in the case it does not appear that any such opportunity was given to the present petitioner. Though the present petitioner himself could have availed the opportunity by moving an application stating the grounds whereby he could not comply with the order of the court, but when he was contesting the proceedings on the ground that he should be afforded an opportunity, failure on his part to move any such petition cannot be taken to mean that he had no sufficient cause or that he is nor entitled to be given any further opportunity. According to the petitioner he has already deposited a sum of Rs.7,000/-. For the remaining amount due, in my opinion, it would be proper that the present petitioner may be given an opportunity under section 125 (3), Cr.P.C. (New) to show cause as to why warrant for levying the amount be not issued and further order for imprisonment be not passed against him. In the light of what I have considered above I consider it a fit case for the exercise of inherent powers of this Court to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of law. 11. In the result, this application is allowed, the impugned orders of the learned Session Judge and the learned Magistrate, are set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed further in the matter after affording the present petitioner an opportunity to show cause under section 125 (3), Cr.P.C. (New) for further effecting recovery of the amount due. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 29th October, 1979.Appeal allowed. *******