1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the opposite party. 2. By the impugned order the trial court has given a direction to the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the opposite party in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). By the same very order he has further directed the petitioner to lead evidence first in the said proceeding. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that in a proceeding under section-125 of the Code a Magistrate can not pass any order for grant of interim maintenance. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Savitri Vs. Govind Singh Rawat reported in A. I. R. 1986 S. C. page 984, in which it has been laid down that in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code an order can be passed for, interim maintenance provided the other conditions enumerated under Section 125 of the Code are fulfilled meaning thereby that the learned Magistrate must come to the conclusion that husband has neglected or refused to maintain his wife. 4. From a bare perusal of the impugned order it would appear that the learned Magistrate has nowhere recorded any finding in the impugned order that the husband had refused or neglected to maintain his wife. This being the position the impugned order granting interim maintenance is fit to be set aside. Ordinarily, I would have remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration. But since the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code was initiated in the year 1988 and a period of more than two years has expired, in my view, instead of directing learned Magistrate to re-consider the matter for grant of interim maintenance the main proceeding under Section 125 of the Code should be disposed of without any delay within the time fixed by this Court. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner next contended that second portion of the impugned order directing the petitioner to lead evidence first is also unwarranted. 6. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner next contended that second portion of the impugned order directing the petitioner to lead evidence first is also unwarranted. 6. Having heard the parties end perused the pleadings I am of the view that it was not a fit case in which the learned Magistrate could have given direction to the petitioner to lead evidence first. The learned Magistrate ought to have directed the petitioner of the main proceeding to lead evidence first and thereafter he should have asked the present petitioner to lead evidence in the proceeding. 7. In view of the aforesaid fact this application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the learned Magistrate is hereby directed to dispose of the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this Order. He will not grant unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.