JUDGMENT N.S. Rao, J. This petition is for quashing the order dated 25.1.1988 passed by Shri B.K. Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No. 6 of 1987 under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby he had refused the petitioner's prayer for ad-interim maintenance. 2. The marriage between Smt. Pushpita Chakraborty petitioner and Shankar Chakraborty, opposite party, was solemnized according to Hindu rites at Parsodih, Jamshedpur on 25.7.1982. Thereafter, they had started living at the latter's house and out of their wedlock, one male child was born in 1983. However, subsequently differences had cropped up between the two. According to the petitioner, as the opposite party was not satisfied with the meagre dowry brought by her she used to be beaten mercilessly by the opposite party. Since then, she and her child are living with her poor widowed mother. The petitioner had filed an application under section 125 of the Code for claiming maintenance for herself and for the child on 18.5.1987, and that application is still pending decision. Then vide another application dated 11.11.1987, she had prayed for interim maintenance during the pendency of her main petition under section 125 of the Code. Notice of that application was issued to the opposite party. She contested the same inter alia on the plea that as the petitioner is not prepared to live with him, she is not (sic) entitled even to interim maintenance. Vide the impugned order dated 25.1.1988, the petitioner's application for interim maintenance has been rejected, and feeling aggrieved, she has come in this petition. 3. The Magistrate has refused to allow interim maintenance to the petitioner for the reason that her learned counsel had not sent for his perusal 1986 Criminal Law Journal 41, a reference of which was made in the application, and further because the petitioner was not prepared to live with the opposite party. These are, in my considered opinion, no grounds for rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for interim maintenance. 1986 Cri. These are, in my considered opinion, no grounds for rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for interim maintenance. 1986 Cri. L.J. 41 (Savitri vs. Gobind Singh, A.I.R. 1986 Supreme Court 984) is the authority on the point that having regard to the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by a Magistrate under section 125, the said provision should be interpreted as conferring power by necessary implication on the Magistrate to pass an order directing a person against whom an application is made under it to pay a reasonable sum by way of interim maintenance subject to other conditions referred to pending final disposal of the application. This being the legal position, rejection of the petitioner's prayer for interim maintenance because of not sending this reported decision to the Magistrate, is highly unfortunate and improper, to say the least. As regards other point that the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance because she is not agreeable to live with the opposite party, the same is to he decided after evidence has hen led and the matter heard for determining as to if that refusal by the wife is without any just ground. Her case from the very start is that the opposite party had made her life a hell because of bringing meagre dowry. She had alleged that the opposite party had opened his mouth too wide in asking for additional minimum Rs. 10,000/- before considering as to whether she be allowed to live with him. She has further averred that as her poor mother is not in a position to meet that improper demand of the opposite party, he had been very cruel on her by torturing her physically and mentally. If these allegations are true, then it provides sufficient cause to the petitioner to live separately from the opposite party. The offer of the opposite party in asking the petitioner to live with him during the pendency of her application under section 125 of the Code prima facie appears to have been made merely with the object of escaping obligations and resisting the petitioner's claim for maintenance. Here it deserves mention that in the show cause filed by the opposite party in the court of the Magistrate, he had, inter alia, stated that due to long separation, the petitioner has developed immoral habits, as at her parents house she bas no check over her. Here it deserves mention that in the show cause filed by the opposite party in the court of the Magistrate, he had, inter alia, stated that due to long separation, the petitioner has developed immoral habits, as at her parents house she bas no check over her. That being the version of the opposite party, it is unthinkable that his offer was genuine in asking the petitioner to live with him. Therefore, looking (sic) the case from any angle, the petitioner deserves ad interim maintenance for herself and her child. 4. The petitioner had sworn in her application that the opposite party is a permanent employee in a Tin Plate Company of India, Golmuri and drawing salary of Rs. 1500/- per month, and has, in addition, income which be derives from his landed property. In the reply, the opposite party has stated that he gets not about Rs. 750/- per month but has not denied the assertion of additional income from the landed property. Assuming that he gets net Rs. 750/- per month from the company, he has to be held in a position to pay the interim maintenance to his wife and to his only child. Having regard to all the circumstances, interim maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month for the petitioner and Rs. 150/- for the child (totalling Rs. 350/-) per month appears to be reasonable. 5. For reasons stated above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is set side. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 350/- per month as interim maintenance to the petitioner and her child from the date of the application filed in that behalf i.e. 11.11.1987. The opposite party is directed to deposit all the arrears of interim maintenance within four months, and is also directed to pay the current and future interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month to the petitioner and her child before 7th of each calendar month. Lest the proceedings are intentionally got dragged by either of the parties, the Magistrate is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. However, no observation made above shall prejudice the mind of learned Magistrate which disposing of the case finally. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear in the court of Shri B.K. Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, on 14.10.1988. However, no observation made above shall prejudice the mind of learned Magistrate which disposing of the case finally. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear in the court of Shri B.K. Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, on 14.10.1988. Records received from the lower court are ordered to be returned forthwith so that they reach there before that date.