JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This revision arises out of a revisional order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore reversing the order granting maintenance to the Petitioner. 2. In 1981 the Petitioner filed an application for maintenance against her husband, the opposite party. The same was not pressed on account of settlement between the husband and wife. However, the settlement did not work out and in 1982, another application was filed by the Petitioner for maintenance. Opposite party in his objection denied the allegations of the Petitioner that he refused to entertain the wife in his house and claimed chat he is prepared to accept the Petitioner and their children. Petitioner examined two witnesses in support of maintenance and opposite party examined himself alone. Learned Magistrate disposed of the application with the following order: On careful scrutiny of the evidence on record it is found that the Petitioner is willing to go with the O.P. as well as the O.P. is also willing to accept her and therefore it is ordered that the Petitioner will join with her husband in her husband's home within seven days from the date of the order and the O. P. is directed to accept the Petitioner in his house as soon as the Petitioner joins him and any contravention of the order by either patty will be looked with as per the provisions of law. The case is disposed of accordingly and in the circumstances without any cost. 3. Alleging that Petitioner went to the house of opposite party several times but he did not accept her, Petitioner filed an application for grant of maintenance in such circumstance. After hearing the parties learned Magistrate in her order dated 28-3-1987 directed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month to be paid the opposite party to the Petitioner. Opposite party being aggrieved by the order filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Revision of the opposite party having been allowed on the finding that the learned Magistrate possessing power only correct clerical or arithmetical errors could not have passed au order for maintenance after disposing of the application and there is no inherent power vested u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure with the learned Magistrate to revise the order, Petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. B. Baug, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate bad no Jurisdiction to pass an order in exercise of power u/s 125. Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the wife to remain with the husband and to direct the husband to accept the wife. If the learned Magistrate passed such an order, he had the jurisdiction to recall the order which was without jurisdiction and to restore back the case for disposal in accordance with Jaw. From the order of the learned Magistrate it will be seen that the objection of the opposite party was with regard to his alleged conduct not to accept the Petitioner and it seems the question of lack of jurisdiction was not pressed to service. Mr. P. Kar, learned Counsel for the opposite party on the other hand justified the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 5. It is true that the learned Magistrate could not have reviewed the earlier order if the petition would have been disposed of on merits wrongly. Review is a creature of the statute in absence of which such power cannot be exercised. Where, however, learned Magistrate or his successor finds that the disposal was without jurisdiction which under no circumstance could have been passed in exercise of the power vested, to recall such order would be ancillary to the power to dispose of the application on merits. Such ancillary power is not inherent power. If the question would have been mooted before the learned Magistrate, I have no doubt that she would have passed a reasoned order to this effect. However, requirement for considering to recall the order is to give opportunity to the party who would be adversely affected. Opposite party had the opportunity in such a case since he appeared to contest the petition. 6. Assuming that the leaned Magistrate bad no power, the record was before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who had suo motu power to revise the order after hearing the parties. Learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have considered whether the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass au order as the one dated 11-1-1985. 7. It is to be kept in mind by all courts that provision for getting maintenance is a benevolent provision. Endeavour is to be made so that the person for whose benefit the provision was made gets the benefit. 7. It is to be kept in mind by all courts that provision for getting maintenance is a benevolent provision. Endeavour is to be made so that the person for whose benefit the provision was made gets the benefit. Technicalities which do not put a bar to consider the question should not be adhered to ways and means as provided under law are to be found out to assist the beneficiaries of the law and no interpretation should be given to deprive the person from the benefit if otherwise available under law. Learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to exercise the suo motu power of revision vested in him. Even if it is accepted that learned Additional- Sessions Judge, could not have exercised suo motu revisional power, this Court can exercise the same for which I have given opportunity to the opposite party to address me on the question. After hearing I am inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Baug that order dated 11-1-1985 was without jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate and is to be vacated. This would regularise the matter. No evidence with regard to quantum has been given after 11-1-1985 when the order of that date was passed. Mr. P. Kar, learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that he should be permitted to adduce evidence with regard to the quantum of maintenance. Submission is very fair. While giving permission to the opposite party to adduce further evidence, the Petitioner should also get a chance to adduce further evidence. 8. Mr. Baug, learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays that some interim maintenance should be granted. If an application is filed before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balasore, the same shall be considered on its own merits. Send back the L.C.R. at once so as to reach before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balasore before 17-4.1989 on which day both parties shall appear before him for fixing a date. 9. In the result the order of revision is set aside and Criminal Misc. Case No. 47 of 1982 is restored to file. Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balasore is directed either to hear it or transfer to any other court for hearing so that the application shall be disposed of early on merits. No costs. 10. Case remanded.