JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - While hearing the learned Counsel for both parties on the question of condonation of delay, with consent of parties criminal revision is finally heard. 2. The criminal revision arises out of an order u/s 126(2), proviso of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Opposite Party claiming to be the wife of the Petitioner filed an application for maintenance u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure. An ex-parte order directing Petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the date at application to the opposite party was passed. Petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order as provided u/s 126(2), proviso of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate was satisfied that good cause had been shown by the Petitioner. He directed restoration of the application for maintenance subject to deposit of Rs. 5000/- Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid conditional order filed Criminal Revision No. 332 of 1986 in this Court. In the said Criminal Revision operation of the impugned order was stayed subject deposit of Rs. 500/- when the Criminal Revision was called the learned Counsel for the Petitioner being absent, it was dismissed for default on 9.3.1987. An application was filed on behalf of the Petitioner for restoration of the revision on the ground that Mr. Rath was absent, since he sought for accommodation and was out of Orissa. Prayer for restoration was it accepted by order dated 21.4.1987 and the Criminal Revision thus, stood dismissed which had the effect of confirmation of the impugned conditional order of the learned Magistrate dated 5.5.1986. 4. Thereafter the present criminal revision has been filed on 28.5.1987 the second time against the said impugned order dated 5.5.1986. Rightly the office has pointed out that there is delay in presenting this Criminal Revision against the same impugned order. While directing stay operation of the order, I directed deposit of Rs. 500/- Mr. Rath submitted that both the amounts have been deposited. 5. The ground for delay in filing the present Criminal Revision is challenge to the impugned order after the first revision was dismissed default. Mr. Rath submitted that the period taken in the first revision excluded, this revision would be marginally delayed which ought to be condoned in the peculiar circumstances of this case. Therefore, I also heard the matter on merits. 6. Mr. Mr. Rath submitted that the period taken in the first revision excluded, this revision would be marginally delayed which ought to be condoned in the peculiar circumstances of this case. Therefore, I also heard the matter on merits. 6. Mr. S.K. Padhi, the learned Counsel for the opposite party, submitted that the revision having been dismissed for default and the application for restoration having been dismissed, the Criminal Revision ought it to be entertained and the delay ought not to be condoned. Such a load proposition as submitted by Mr. Padhi cannot be accepted in view absence of any bar for entertaining a second revision in appropriate cases in the peculiar circumstances where the first revision has not been decided on merits to attract Section 397(2), Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the earlier refusal to restore the Criminal Revision by this Court as in this case is to be given great weight. Facts and circumstances of each case are to be examined to find out whether the propriety demands entertainment of a second revision when the first revision was not decided on merits, since the revisional power is purely discretionary and a party has no right for referring a revision. 7. Be that as it may, I need not examine the question if the delay would be condoned in the circumstances as stated above since on merits I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate has passed an appropriate order u/s 126(2), proviso of the Code of Criminal Procedure which read as follows: 126. Procedure- (1) .... (2) .... Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against when an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully neglecting to the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to bear and determine the case ex-parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper. (3) .... ( Emphasis supplied) A bare reading of this provision makes it clear that the learned Magistrate can set aside the ex-parte order subjects to such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party. The learned Magistrate has not given any terms relating to costs. (3) .... ( Emphasis supplied) A bare reading of this provision makes it clear that the learned Magistrate can set aside the ex-parte order subjects to such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party. The learned Magistrate has not given any terms relating to costs. He has only directed in the impugned order for deposit towards the maintenance from 24.11.1984, the dare of application till 25.6.1986, the date of ex-parte order calculated on the basis of the amount awarded at Rs. 300/- per month which would facilitate the payment to the opposite party in case the final order is again passed in her favour in fact for 19 months the amount should have been Rs. 5,700/- The learned Magistrate is liberal in directing payment of Rs. 5,000/- only. In case an ex-parte money decree would have been executed, for stay of the same direction could have been given to deposit the amount. In case of maintenance the standard should be at least the same if not more rigorous. Under Industrial Disputes Act also which is a benevolent legislation where an award declaring the termination illegal is sought to be avoided, the successful employee is directed to pay the wages he last drew till disposal of the challenge. Therefore, on merits the impugned order is unassailable where there is no unreasonableness in the order and when the same has been passed within jurisdiction. 8. Petitioner claims that he is a labourer and the amount directed to be paid as monthly maintenance in the ex-parte order is excessive. It is submitted by Mr. Rath, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that during pendency of this revision a decree of nullity of the marriage has already been passed. I need not go into the said questions since these may be matters for modification of the order of maintenance passed by the learned Magistrate u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure for which the learned Magistrate can be approached. 9. Mr. Rath submitted that operation of the impugned order has been stayed by this Hon'ble Court on conditions and the conditions having been complied with time should be extended to deposit the said amount to contest the petition. I am not inclined to accept the submission. No seoner the first revision was dismissed for default the order of stay automatically stood vacated and the impugned order became operative. I am not inclined to accept the submission. No seoner the first revision was dismissed for default the order of stay automatically stood vacated and the impugned order became operative. If the amount would have been deposited and extension of time would have been applied for the matter would have been different. Petitioner persisted in contesting the order by applying for restoration of the revision if at the time of dismissal of the application for restoration, prayer for extension of time to deposit the amount is compliance of the impugned order would have been made, possibly, this Court would have considered the question. No such prayer was made and this second revision was filed. If I would have held that the impugned order is unreasonable, I might have considered the prayer of the Petitioner when I would have declined to exercise the power of revision. Since I am satisfied that the impugned order is unassailable, I am not inclined to extend time as fixed in the impugned order. The amount of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand) stated to have already been in deposit shall be adjusted towards the arrear maintenance. 10. In the result, I find no merit in this Criminal Revision which it accordingly, dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed