ORDER K.K. Varma, J. – 1. On 12-1-1983 present applicant Sulabha alias Rashmi filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 before a Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior for a monthly maintenance allowance of five hundred rupees from her husband, present non-applicant Ram Shankar. 2. On 4-2-1983 Sulabha filed an application for interim monthly allowance of three hundred rupees. Ram Shankar filed a written statement on 7-2-1983 to oppose it. No evidence was recorded on the disputed facts. After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application for interim maintenance on 24-2-1983 saying: "2. When questioned as to how interim maintenance can be granted without any express provision therefor in the Code like the Hindu Marriage Act, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Naik urged that there is no prohibition also in the Code against granting interim maintenance and it my be granted under inherent powers which can be exercised by the lower Courts also as laid down in 1975 JLJ 708 . 3. In 1975 JLJ 708 it has been laid down that subordinate criminal Courts may also exercise inherent powers which are necessary to their existence and the proper discharge of duties imposed upon them, by law. I do not think by not granting interim maintenance existence of this Court is going to be imperiled. Using inherent powers for proper discharge of duties imposed by law does not mean evolving new procedure which is not there at all in the Code. These proceedings are of summary nature. In a summary proceeding, without going into the merits it will not be proper to grant interim maintenance which it may be difficult to recover if the application fails. Application is rejected." 3. It appears that the unsuccessful lady did not challenge the order in a superior Court. 4. The Supreme Court held in their judgment dated 9-10-1985 in Savitri v. Govind Singh 1985 MPLJ 662 (SC) that a criminal Court has power to award an interim maintenance in a proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973. 5. In the wake of the aforementioned decision applicant Sulabha filed another application for monthly interim maintenance of three hundred rupees on 7-1-1988 in the aforementioned proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C., referring to the aforementioned proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court but without giving any particulars of the ruling. 6. 5. In the wake of the aforementioned decision applicant Sulabha filed another application for monthly interim maintenance of three hundred rupees on 7-1-1988 in the aforementioned proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C., referring to the aforementioned proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court but without giving any particulars of the ruling. 6. In his written reply the present non-applicant Ramshankar reiterated the stand that he was not married to the present applicant. The existence of the decision of the Supreme Court was not admitted. Besides, the bar of res judicata based on the earlier order of the Magistrate on 24-2-1983 was also pleaded. 7. The learned Magistrate awarded an interim allowance of Rs. 200/- per month on the condition that applicant Sulabha executes a security in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-. 8. In non-applicant Ram Shankar's revision (No. 4/86) the Sixth Addl. Sessions Judge affirmed the Magistrate's finding that the documentary evidence and affidavits on record prima facie showed that the parties did undergo marriage. 9. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, however, set aside the order for interim maintenance on a finding that it amounted to a review of a final order in which there was no clerical or arithmetical error. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the aforementioned subject. 11. It is clear that the law enunciated by the Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts under Article 141. The learned Magistrate, who allowed the application for interim allowance was, therefore, bound to allow it and has done so rightly. It was not open to her to revert to the view of law taken by her predecessor. Besides, the second application was not for a review of the earlier order for the following reasons. The second application contained her grievance that she had no means to support herself during the pendency of the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. and that the present non-applicant had sufficient means to pay for her support even at the date of the' second application made for interim maintenance. All this constituted cause of action at the date of the second application. It is to be recalled that the earlier order contained no findings on similar questions of fact arising out of the first application. The plea of res judicata was not available to the present non-applicant on facts. All this constituted cause of action at the date of the second application. It is to be recalled that the earlier order contained no findings on similar questions of fact arising out of the first application. The plea of res judicata was not available to the present non-applicant on facts. No question of review of the earlier order was involved. The learned Additional Sessions Judge's finding to this effect is hereby set aside. His finding on the factum of the marriage - for the limited purpose of the interim maintenance - is affirmed. The second application for interim maintenance is held to be maintainable in law. 12. In the result, the revision succeeds. The order of the learned Sixth Addl. Sessions Judge, Gwalior is set aside to the extent stated in the previous paragraph. He is directed to rehear the parties and dispose of the revision after taking up the following points viz. the quantum of the monthly allowance and the date from it is to be made payable. Until the revision is fully disposed of by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior the operation of the order dated 2-1-1986 passed by the learned Magistrate, Gwalior shall remain in operation. 13. The parties are directed (through counsel) to appear before the learned Sixth Addl. Sessions Judge, Gwalior on 28-11-1989. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge shall rehear the case in advertence to the observations made by this Court hereinabove and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, not later than 15-1-1990, barring unusal circumstances. 14. The record of the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. be sent back to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. It may be requisitioned by the learned Sixth Addl. Sessions Judge only on an express order that the record is required for the disposal of the revision petition before him.