JUDGMENT J.G. Chitre, J. 1. When this matter has been called on for hearing, Mr. R. Thanewala present for the applicant. Non-applicant absent. None appears for him. The record shows that a notice of hearing of this petition was sent to non- applicant. Besides that, it being a revision petition the presence of non-applicant is not necessary because it is the duty of the Court to examine the correctness, propriety and legality of the order which is assailed in this revision petition. 2. The grievance of the applicant-wife is that the learned Court below passed an illegal order against her on 28.7.1993 and directed her to pay the expenses and allowance for maintenance of her husband, the non-applicant who has been sent to Civil Jail for 15 days for non-payment of amount of alimony which remained un-paid to applicant-wife. 3. Mr. R. Thanewala, learned Counsel for applicant made reference to provisions of Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and urged that the order which is being assailed is totally contrary to the provisions of law. It is his argument that when the wife is claiming alimony for her maintenance on the ground that she is unable to maintain herself, it would be totally unfair and illegal to ask her to pay for the expenses of her husband who has been sent to civil jail for non-payment of amount of alimony to her. 4. In view of the argument which has been advanced by Mr. Thanewala, learned Counsel for the applicant-wife, the impugned order has been examined. Obviously it is inconsistent with provisions of Section 125 of the Code. The relevant POrtion of Section 125(3) provides "may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month's allowance remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made." It does not indicate at all that the wife in whose favour an order for payment of alimony has been passed is required to spend any pai for expenses for maintenance of such husband in the imprisonment. 5. The provisions of Chapter IX of the Code are enacted with a specific purpose which is benevolent and for protection of weaker section of the society. 5. The provisions of Chapter IX of the Code are enacted with a specific purpose which is benevolent and for protection of weaker section of the society. The said provisions have been specifically enacted for providing wherewithal to hapless discarded wives and children who require the shelter and protection of the law. Such persons cannot be left searching for the bread and sanctuary risking their soals and virtues. When a discarded wife prefers an application in the Court claiming alimony from her husband on the ground of neglect and refusal to maintain herself, the Court has to order such husband to make payment of necessary allowance for her maintenance if she proves that her husband having sufficient means neglected and refused to maintain her who happens to be without sufficient means. If such husband neglects or does not pay such alimony to such wife, the Court has to either recover that amount by the procedure laid down by law or to send such a husband to imprisonment for the purpose of making him to pay such alimony to such discarded wife. When that wife is begging for alimony, coming to the Court for getting alimony from husband for her maintenance, it would be not only cruel but would be unjust also to ask her to make payment of the expenses for maintaining such husband during his imprisonment. That is not the spirit behind the provisions which have been embodied in Chapter IX of the Code. 6. Said imprisonment is to be consistent with "sentence", "imprisonment" indicated by Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 29, 30. It should not be as indicated by Civil Procedure Code. 7. Thus, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the impugned order is incorrect, improper and, therefore, illegal. That part of the impugned order needs to be set aside. 8. It has been urged by Mr. Thanewala, learned Counsel for the applicant- wife that applicant be given the costs of this litigation. I allow this prayer because the applicant who is in search of alimony for her maintenance has been required to knock the doors of this Court for getting the justice. The costs of this litigation will have to be also on the shoulder of the husband non-applicant Jeevan Pal s/o Raghunath Pal who neglected or refused to maintain his wife the present applicant. The costs of this litigation will have to be also on the shoulder of the husband non-applicant Jeevan Pal s/o Raghunath Pal who neglected or refused to maintain his wife the present applicant. Keeping in view the strata of the society from which both, the husband and wife come, I fix the costs of this litigation to the tune of Rs. 300/- (three hundred). 9. Thus, the revision petition is allowed. That part of the impugned order which has been passed by learned Magistrate on 28.7.1993 directing the applicant-wife to pay expenses of maintenance of husband who has been directed to be in civil prison, stands set aside. It is made very clear that non- applicant/husband Jeevan Pal should undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days in regular jail and not in civil jail. The non-applicant shall pay Rs. 300/-(three hundred) to his wife Anuradha Pal as costs of this litigation. The applicant Anuradha Pal is at liberty to pursue further legal remedies for enforcing her legal rights. Revision Petition allowed.