JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The short question that arises for determination in this case is whether in a proceeding u/s 125, Criminal Procedure Code the Magistrate has the power to permit the applicant to amend the application filed under the section seeking maintenance. 2. In this petition filed under Sections 399, 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed to quash the order passed by the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar on 23-10-1989 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 38 of 1988 rejecting her petition to amend the application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. 3. The petitioner claiming to be the wife of the opp. party filed the application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar for maintenance from the opp. party which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 37 of 1988. During pendency of the case she filed the petition purportedly under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. praying to make certain amendment in the application filed u/s 125, Cr.P.C., the essential purpose of which was to correct the date of marriage given in the application and to elucidate certain facts stated therein. The opp. party objected to the prayer mainly on the ground that the provision in Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. was not applicable to the proceeding and hence the petition was not maintainable. The learned Magistrate accepted the objection and rejected the petition for amendment. 4. From the discussions in the impugned order it is evident that, the said ground for rejection of the prayer for amendment of the application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. was that Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. has no application to the proceeding u/s 125, Cr.P.C., since it was not a proceeding of civil nature and the Criminal Procedure Code makes no provision enabling the Magistrate to permit amendment of the application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Norbet Kispatta v. Mst. Tersa Kerketa, reported in 1971 CLJ 1496. 5. Shri G.S. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate was not right in holding that he had no power to permit the petitioner to amend her application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. Shri Alok Samantaray, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party on the other hand supported the impugned order relying on the aforementioned decision of this Court. 6. 6. I have carefully perused the decision of this Court in the case of Norbet Kispetta (supra). In my view, the learned Magistrate did not correctly interpret the ratio in the decision to mean that in a proceeding u/s 125, Cr.P.C. (Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898) the Magistrate has no power to permit amendment of the application. In that case the Court was considering the correctness of the contention that the proceeding u/s 488, Cr.P.C. being of a civil nature, the petition filed is in the nature of a plaint in the civil suit and therefore the petitioner must be bound down to the averments made in the petition. This Court negatived the contention relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nandlal Misra Vs. K.L. Misra, that though the relief given under Chapter XXXVI which includes Section 488, Cr.P.C. is essentially of a civil nature, all the same the proceedings under the said Chapter are not civil proceedings so as to attract the provisions of the CPC as the said proceedings are wholly governed by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and that being so the provisions of Chapters VI, VII and VIII, CPC relating to pleadings in a civil suit do not apply to a petition u/s 488, Cr.P.C. In essence, what was held by this Court was that the rigour of the rule of pleading does not apply to a proceeding u/s 488, Cr.P.C. and the applicant is not to be bound down to the statements contained in the application. This Court did not deal with the question of the Court's power to permit amendment of the application u/s 488, Cr.P.C. Therefore the learned Magistrate was not right in concluding from the aforementioned decision that he had no power to consider the petitioner's prayer to amend her application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. 7. Section 125, Cr.P.C. vests power in a Magistrate of the first class, inter alia, to order any person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife if he is satisfied that the said person having sufficient means has neglected or refused to maintain his wife unable to maintain herself. Section 125, Cr.P.C. vests power in a Magistrate of the first class, inter alia, to order any person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife if he is satisfied that the said person having sufficient means has neglected or refused to maintain his wife unable to maintain herself. Keeping in view the intent and purpose in enacting the provision and the purpose sought to be achieved it would be reasonable to assume that the Magistrate is vested with all ancillary powers necessary for the purpose of effectual and proper exercise of jurisdiction vested in him u/s 125, Cr.P.C. The power to permit the petitioner to amend the application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. is, in my view, an ancillary power of a purely procedural nature. Therefore, in the absence of any provision in the Criminal Procedure Code prohibiting exercise of such power the learned Magistrate could permit amendment of the application in exercise of the ancillary power. Further, the purpose of the amendment, as noticed earlier, was to correct the date of marriage stated in the application and to elucidate certain facts stated therein. The amendment was intended to put the opp. party to notice of the facts and thereby help the Magistrate in conducting the proceeding fairly and properly. Therefore though the learned Magistrate was right in holding that the provision of Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. in terms did not apply to the proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C., he was not right in holding that he had no jurisdiction to permit the petitioner to amend her application. If any authority is necessary to support this view, I may refer to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Haribhau Kisan Patil v. Manorma and Anr., reported in 2 (1985) DMC 230. In that case the Bombay High Court relying on two earlier decisions of the Court reported in 1980 Mh. L.J. 871 (Baburao Akaram v. Kusum Baburao) and 1981 Mh. L.J. 907 (Marotrae v. Chandrakanta) held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to allow amendment of the application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. 8. The point can also be examined from another angle. The application in this Court has been filed u/s 482, Cr.P.C. Though the subordinate criminal Courts are not vested with inherent power, there is no doubt that this Court has the inherent power (See Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Vs. Kali Singh, ). The point can also be examined from another angle. The application in this Court has been filed u/s 482, Cr.P.C. Though the subordinate criminal Courts are not vested with inherent power, there is no doubt that this Court has the inherent power (See Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Vs. Kali Singh, ). Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner to amend her application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. can also be considered by this Court in exercise of its inherent power. In the facts and circumstances discussed in the fore going paragraphs I would not hesitate to exercise such power since, as I have already held, the proposed amendment would help the learned Magistrate in fair and proper adjudication of the matter and will serve the ends of justice. 9. Thus viewed from any angle, I do not find any difficulty in holding that the petition filed by the petitioner to amend her application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. should be allowed. Accordingly the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the petition filed by the petitioner to amend her application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. is allowed. The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law. Final Result : Allowed