JUDGMENT S. B. Sinha, J.- This application in directed against a part of the order dated 31.7.1986 passed by the respondent no. 2 and as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application, whereby and where under the said respondent directed the Accounts Officer Slaving Mill, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, Dhanbad to direct the petitioner to attend his office and so long he does not do so, withheld payment of his salary. 2. The basic facts of this case are admitted. 3. The respondent no. 4 filed an application before Deputy Collector In-charge of Desertion Cell, Dhanbad, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 97 of 1986. The said application is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. 4. According to the respondent no. 4, she was not is a position to maintain herself and despite the fact that she intends to live with the petitioner the petitioner had not been keeping her, as allegedly, he had married for the second time. 5. By reason of the impugned order. the respondent no. 2, as indicated hereinbefore, directed the Accounts Officer, Slaving Mill, Bokaro Steel City, Dhabad asking him to withhold the salary on the ground that the petitioner had not been appearing in his court in order to delay the disposal of the said proceeding. 6. The learned counsel appearing on be half of the petitioner submitted that the respondent no. 2 being an Executive Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. 7. Mr. B. Y. Kishore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2, on the other hand submitted that the Desertion cell were opened in all the district purported to be for giving effect to the 20 point programme. The learned counsel submitted that in a proceeding before the Desertion cell, the rights of the parties are not determined but merely an attempt is made to conciliate between a husband and the wife, who has been deserted by her husband. 8. The learned counsel submitted that in fact, the impugned portion of the order as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application has not been given effect to, inasmuch as immediately after the appearance of the petitioner before the respondent no. 2, he is getting his salary. 8. 8. The learned counsel submitted that in fact, the impugned portion of the order as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application has not been given effect to, inasmuch as immediately after the appearance of the petitioner before the respondent no. 2, he is getting his salary. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that this Court, by an order dated 20.5.1987 stayed further proceeding in the said case, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 200/- by the 15th of each month in favour of the respondent no. 4 and in case the amount is deposited respondent no. 4 shall be entitled to withdraw the same. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew my attention to Annexure 4 to the writ application arid submitted that in fact, it is the respondent no. 4 herself who does not want to stay with him although, he is ready and wil1ing to keep her in his house as wife. 11. If a wife has any grievance with regard to the non-receipt of any maintenance from the husband or if she wants a decree for restitution of conjugal life, the procedures laid down thereof either in terms of the provision of Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are required to be followed. 12. There cannot, therefore, be any doubt that the respondent no. 2 being an Executive Officer cannot pass any order which will affect the right of a citizen of India and/or will visit him with civil or/evil consequences. 13. It is true, as has been contended by Mr. B. Y. Kishore that the Desertion Cells were opened in all the districts so as to effectuate conciliation between the husband and the wife. The object of opening of Desertion Cell, if what has been contended by Mr. B. Y. Kishore, is correct, must be held to be laudable but while purporting to act as a conciliation, no Executive Magistrate far less any Executive Officer cannot be permitted to transgress the law. 14. The object of opening of Desertion Cell, if what has been contended by Mr. B. Y. Kishore, is correct, must be held to be laudable but while purporting to act as a conciliation, no Executive Magistrate far less any Executive Officer cannot be permitted to transgress the law. 14. He, while acting as an Executive Magistrate while effecting conciliation proceeding cannot exercise any power either as an Executive Magistrate or otherwise but he will have to do it in his capacity of an officer of the State to implement the 20 point programme, but without exercising any power by giving certain direction to the employee of the husband. The executive Magistrate does not have any such authority in law. In such a proceeding, therefore, the respondent no. 2 can only persuade the parties to turn up but cannot take any coercive steps in order to achieve the said purpose. 15. In this situation, in view of the submissions made by Mr. B. Y. Kishore at the bar, that the offending portion of the order as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application has not been given effect to, it is Dot necessary to quash the same. If, however, the respondent no. 2 intends to hold conciliatory proceeding between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4, be must act within the authority of Jaw and in the light of the observations made hereinbefore. 16. It is however needless to point out that it would be open to the respondent no. 4 also to take recourse to Jaw either by way of filing an application under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. and/or by filing an appropriate application under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before a competent forum. 17. In the result, this application is disposed of with the aforementioned observation and direction. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.