This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 CrPC is directed against the judgment dated 10th July, 199 J passed by learned Additional District Judge in Criminal Revision No. 16 (2) 90 affirming the judgment of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 30.8.1986 allowing maintenance to the present petitioner and his wife. 2. I have beard Mr. JC Debnath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.S.Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts material for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner No.l Shri Jamini Mohan Debnath who is the father of the respondent presented a petition before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura District, claiming maintenance allowance for himself and his wife @ Rs.250/- per mensem. The respondent resisted the petition on various grounds such as the petitioner No.l is in good physical condition and he earns Rs. 300/- per month. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective case and the learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record granted the petitioner and his wife maintenance allowance @ Rs. 125/-per head per month i.e. Rs. /50/- a month lor the petitioner and his wife. But the learned trial Court passed the order requiring the respondent to pay the aforesaid sum as maintenance in case the petitioner and his wife fail to reside with him. Aggrieved by this conditional order the petitioner No. 1 preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. But the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala by his judgment dated 10th July, 1990 while maintaining the order of the learned trial Court, observed that' lie did not find any sort of infirmity or illegality in that order. Hence, this present petition. 4. The only question involved in this case is whether the order that was passed by the learned trial Court is a conditional order and if so whether the trial Court is entitled to pass such a conditional order as per the provision laid down in section 125. Mr. Debnath, the learned counsel for the petitioners has quite forcefully submitted that the learned Magistrate committed error of law in pas5ing such a conditional order as section 125 CrPC mandates either to allow the maintenance or to reject it. Mr. Debnath, the learned counsel for the petitioners has quite forcefully submitted that the learned Magistrate committed error of law in pas5ing such a conditional order as section 125 CrPC mandates either to allow the maintenance or to reject it. According to him section 125 CrPC does not allow him to pass such a conditional order. In support of his contention, Mr. Debnath, has also referred to a decision in the case of Nathuram vs. Smti Ramsri, reported in AIR 1965 Allahabad at page 129 where it was held that "a perusal of section 488 makes it clear that it contemplates only two kinds of orders. The application can be allowed and the amount of maintenance determined or the application can be dismissed. A Magistrate cannot pass an order not allowing maintenance for the present but to direct that in the event of certain conditions coming into existence maintenance allowance shall be payable." 5. The other decision relied on by Mr. Debnath, the learned counsel for the petitioners is the decision rendered in the case of Smti Bhanwari Bala vs. Bheroon Lai reported in 1973 Crl LJ at page 804. In this decision also it was held that ''Section 488 contemplates only two kinds of orders. The application can be either allowed and the amount of maintenance determined or it can be dismissed A Magistrate cannot pass an order not allowing maintenance for the present and directing that in the event of certain conditions coming into existence maintenance allowance shall be payable. Such a conditional order is incapable of execution." 6. But, Mr. Laskar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has quite strenuosly argued that the impugned order are not conditional order. I am, however, unable to pursuade myself to agree with the submission of Mr. Laskar, the learned counsel for the respondent as a bare perusal of the order impugned makes it abundantly clear that it is a conditional order. The relevant portion of the order may by quoted as under : "If the petitioner and his wife fails to reside with the family of the opposite party, then the opposite party shall pay maintenance allowance for his parents, i.e. the petitioner and his wife @ Rs. 125/- per month i.e. total Rs. 250/- per month from this date." 7. The above portion of the order clearly indicates that it was a conditi­onal order. Mr. 125/- per month i.e. total Rs. 250/- per month from this date." 7. The above portion of the order clearly indicates that it was a conditi­onal order. Mr. Laskar has, however, submitted that in view of the provision laid down under sub-section (4) of section 125 CrPC, such a conditional order can be passed by Magistrate. According to him, in the place of word 'wife' father or mother has to be read and that if sufficient reasons are given for such an order, it is permissible under provisions of sub-section (4) of section 125 CrPC. I have gone through the entire provision laid down in sub-section (4) of section 125 CrPC. But I am unable to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the respondent. The order is very much a conditional order and, such a conditional order is not contemplated by section 125 CrPC. The appli­cation is accordingly allowed in part. The Magistrate's order of maintenance is maintained except the condition laid down in the order. The petitioner Shri Jamini Mohan Debnath and his wife Smti Surabala Debnath will be entitled to maintenance @ Rs.250/- per mensem, i.e. Rs. 125 + 125 each per month. The amount of costs and the accumulated arrears of maintenance allowance shall be paid by the respondent Shri Sukhlal Debnath @ Rs. 125/-per month only until the entire amount is paid, and in addition to Rs. 125/- per month, he will have to pay Rs. 250/- per month for the petitioner Sri Jamini Mohan Debnath and his wife Smti Surabala Debnath who are the parents of the respondent. In the event of respondent's (Shri Sukhlal Debnath) failure to pay any monthly instalment of Rs. 125/- of the arrear amount, the petitioner and his wife shall be entitled to take steps for realisation of the entire-amount then remaining unpaid by way of arrears. The petition is accordingly disposed of.