It saddens me to watch and see the multifold increase of Criminal Revisions against orders granting or refusing to grant maintenance u/s. 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for short the Code and to note the plight of the parties, who are utterly poor, more particularly the neglected wives. Sec. 125 of 'the Code' enables a wife or a child or parents to get maintenance upon proof of neglect or refusal by the husbands, parents and sons, who having means to sustain them do not provide the maintenance. It is thus clear that those unable to maintain themselves ask for and get maintenance us. 125. I also find that they get minimal or inconsequential maintenance allowances. It is well-nigh impossible for them to contest proceedings in Court. 2. Now, the problem is how to provide justice ? What should be done under similar circumstances say, in the instant case ? Can the neglected wife getting a paltry sum of Rs. 175/-per month to sustain herself and her child fight this litigation. This is just an illustrative case. In my opinion the wretc­hed, the poor and the neglected must be given legal aid or assistance by the State. It is the Constitutional obligation of the State, rather it is the Constitutional right of the poor to demand legal assistance from the State. The poor cannot be denied justice merely because they are poor. The solemn pled­ges imprinted in the preamble to the Constitution of India are to ensure justice, liberty, equality and dignity to the citizen of India. It is the Constitutional right of the poor to demand free legal assistance from the States. They are not to beg for free legal aid. One is only to look at Article 39A and Article 14 of the Constitution, the spirit of the Constitution, to rea­lise that the time has come when the poor must be provided with appropriate legal assistance by the State. It is high time to realise that it is the right of the poor to get equal justice and the said right has been denied to them so long. If, in such cases, the poor divorcee, the neglected children and parents do not get free legal assistance from the State to vindicate their rights I feel that sleeping over the matter would be "anti Constitutional inaction". If, in such cases, the poor divorcee, the neglected children and parents do not get free legal assistance from the State to vindicate their rights I feel that sleeping over the matter would be "anti Constitutional inaction". We should not forget that the Cons­titution is the Great Charter of Indian social, economic and political liberties,, I earnestly desire that all should understand and know the spirit of the Constitution and perform duties strictly in accordance with the letters and spirit thereof. It high time to recall what Aristotle informed the civilized world way back in mid 300 B. C. He said : "The greatest of all the means.... for ensuring the stabi­lity of Constitutions-but which is nowadays generally neglected-is the education of citizens in the spirit of the Constitution....Licentiousness may exist in a state as in individual persons....The education of a citizen in the spirit of his Constitution does not consist in his doing the actions in which....the adherents of democracy might delight. It consists in doing the actions by which....a democracy will be enabled to survive----The democrat starts by assu­ming that justice consists in equality; be proceeds to identify equality with the sovereignty of the will of the masses; he ends with the view that 'liberty and equa­lity' consist in 'doing what one likes'......This is a mean conception of liberty. To live by the rule of the Constitution ought not to be regarded as slaver at but rather as salvation". Vide Politics PP. 233-34 (Emphasis supplied) Indeed, for ensuring the stability of our constitution and to enable our democracy to survive, teaching of the spirit of the Constitution has become essential. It is necessary for our salvation and to fulfil the cherished pledges imprinted in the preamble to the Constitution. It has assumed great importance for the unity and integrity of the country. Our education policy should envision the necessity to educate all, including the school children, the spirit of the Constitution. I feel that it is imperative. It is for the authorities to consider and I leave it to the judgment of the people and the Governments. 3. I am of the opinion that in the cases of the nation with which I am presently concerned, it is the right of the neglected and utterly poor persons to have free legal assistant from the State. It is for the authorities to consider and I leave it to the judgment of the people and the Governments. 3. I am of the opinion that in the cases of the nation with which I am presently concerned, it is the right of the neglected and utterly poor persons to have free legal assistant from the State. It is the minimum that the State is oblige to do by and under the Constitution. I feel that necessary orders, circulars or directions may be issued by the Governments to enable the High Court and the Courts subordinate to it to provide free legal assistance to these neglected persons from the original court to the highest Court of the region. In anticipation of an order from the Government empowering the Court to appoint advocates at the cost of the States, I propose to appoint Amicus Curiae in all such cases. 4. Mr. A. K. Phukan, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam submits that the Government would surely per­form its constitutional obligations what I desire is neither a neu­tral order or evasive order, but a positive or affirmative order. The administrative or the executive wings of the State are also responsible to deliver administrative and quasi-judicial justice and ensure equality, liberty, justice and fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual. I am assured by Mr. Phukan that within a short period he would furnish me the necessary order or directives of the Government of Assam. 5. Upon bearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned judgment I make the following order : Let the records be sent for. Let a Rule issue calling upon the opposite party to show as to why the impugned order dated 27.12.85 passed in C. M. No. 13(3-G) of 1985 passed by Sessions Judge. Goalpara shall not be set aside, as prayed for; or why such further or other orders shall to be passed as to this court may seen fit and proper. In the meantime Mr. A.H. Saikia, learned Advocate is appo­inted Amicus Curiae for the opposite party subject to the pay­ment of fees to be fixed by the Government. Other wise, Mr. Saikia undertakes to conduct the case of the opposite party free of cost. 6. In the meantime Mr. A.H. Saikia, learned Advocate is appo­inted Amicus Curiae for the opposite party subject to the pay­ment of fees to be fixed by the Government. Other wise, Mr. Saikia undertakes to conduct the case of the opposite party free of cost. 6. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretaries of the States and the Union Territories within the jurisdiction of this Court for taking necessary steps as indicated above and to furnish intimation to the High Court the follow up actions taken by the Government.