JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the file of the case. 2. This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 6.1.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh in Chagan Lal v. Smt. Cita & Ors., Criminal Revision No. 128/95. By the aforesaid order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner Chagan Lal and declined to interfere with the order dated 23.6.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chittorgarh directing that warrant be issued for the recovery of the arrears of maintenance allowance, which was payable @ Rs. 800/- per month to the non-petitioners w.e.f. 4.12.1993. 3. In the revision petition filed in Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 23.6.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chittorgarh was bad in law, because no notice had been served on the petitioner under sub-sec. (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. before directing the issue of warrant for the recovery of arrears of maintenance allowance. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the order passed by the Court in Sher Mohammed v. Mst. Roshan; 1987 WLN (UC) 58 and distinguished that case on the basis of facts. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further opined that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner can be said to have sufficient knowledge of the order by which maintenance allowance was granted. As observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order, the order for grant of maintenance allowance was passed by the Court after giving an opportunity to both the parties and after passing of that order no amount was paid towards the maintenance allowance and warrants were issued for recovery of the amount, but they could not be executed. In view of the opinion formed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he rejected the revision petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that before the issue of process for the recovery of maintenance allowance, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to issue a notice. He has placed reliance on some judgments, which I shall be referring in a moment. It would be useful to reproduce the provisions contained in sub-sec. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that before the issue of process for the recovery of maintenance allowance, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to issue a notice. He has placed reliance on some judgments, which I shall be referring in a moment. It would be useful to reproduce the provisions contained in sub-sec. (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which reads : "Section 125(3) - If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided ' for levying fines, and 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 maded : Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order tinder this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just grond for so doing. Explanation:- if a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him." 6. A bare reading of sub-sec. (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. shows that there is no express provision requiring the service of any notice on the person, who, under the order passed by the Courts is liable to pay the maintenance allowance. In fact, in cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been observed that no such notice is required by Statute as it exists. 7. In V.P. Shivanna v. Snit. Bhadramma, 1993 Cr.L.J. 1993, 418 at 420 of the report the learned Judge observed ;- "It is no doubt true that it is not stated so many clear words in Section 125(3) that a notice will have to be given. 7. In V.P. Shivanna v. Snit. Bhadramma, 1993 Cr.L.J. 1993, 418 at 420 of the report the learned Judge observed ;- "It is no doubt true that it is not stated so many clear words in Section 125(3) that a notice will have to be given. In fact, Smt. Manjula Devi has not disputed the fact that a notice under section 125(3) is necessary before having recourse to further proceedings thereunder, against the person against whom an order for maintenance has already been passed under section 125(1) Cr.P.C. Above observations clearly show that the learned Single Judge has observed that in terms of sub-sec. (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not require a notice and that the opposite party (Smt. Manjula Devi) had not disputed the fact that a notice was necessary. It appears that the matter was not pursued, because the opposite party did not lay emphasis on it. 8. In Mahipal v. Smt. Laxmi Bai, WLN (UC) 1974, 70 at 72 of the report a learned Single Judge of this Court observed : "Although sub-sec. (3) of Section 488 Cr.P.C. does not in terms require that such notice to show cause should be given to the husband before passing an order for execution, yet the opening words in sub-sec. (3) of Section 488 Cr.P.C. that if any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, clearly indicate that the requirement that such notice should be issued is implicit in sub-sec. (3), because if such notice is issued, the husband may come before the Court and may establish sufficient cause for non-compliance with the order of maintenance and because in case the husband is able to show sufficient cause for non-compliance." Above observations clearly show that the learned Single Judge was conscious of the fact that there is no statutory requirement that a notice should be served before the order for attachment could be passed under sub-sec. (3) of Section 448 Cr.P.C. (1898). But the principles of natural justice were applied on account of the latter provision requiring the presence of the sufficient cause for not payment. 9. In the case of Sher Mohammed v. Smt. Roshan, 1987 WLN (UC) 58 the decision given in Mahipal's case (supra) was considered and therefore, the service of the notice was considered necessary. 10. The observations made by Hon'ble Mr. 9. In the case of Sher Mohammed v. Smt. Roshan, 1987 WLN (UC) 58 the decision given in Mahipal's case (supra) was considered and therefore, the service of the notice was considered necessary. 10. The observations made by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.C. Desai in Laxmi Narain v. State, AIR 1959 All. 556 appear to be illuminating in this behalf. His Lordship ob-served:- "Though it is not said in so many words that before issuing a warrant for levying the amount due, the Magistrate must hold an enquiry in the presence of the husband, that is necessarily, the intention of the Legislature. In the first place, the Magistrate can issue a warrant only if he finds that the husband failed without sufficient cause to comply with the order; consequently an enquiry whether the failure was for sufficient cause or not must be held. The statement of the wife alone may suffice to satisfy him that the failure was without sufficient cause but the enquiry must be made in the presence of the husband, who must have an opportunity of not only cross-examining the wife but also of producing evidence to prove that his failure was for sufficient cause is against him and the well-known principle of natural justice requires that before it is given he must be given an opportunity to be heard. The provision that the Magistrate, may issue a warrant notwithstanding the husband's offer to maintain his wife itself contemplates that the offer has been made before the issue of warrant. The surest way of ensuring that the husband has been afforded an opportunity of making such an offer before a warrant is issued is by issuing a notice to him to show cause why a warrant should not be issued; he is then expected to appear in Court and make the offer and the Magistrate will consider whether the wife's refusal to accept it is just or not. An application for enforcement of the order must be made within a certain time provided it is made within the time a warrant can be ordered to be issued at any time. The fact that no time limit is prescribed for the issue of a warrant suggests that the Legislature expected sometime to elapse between the making of an application and the issue of a warrant and this lapse of time could be expected only if an enquiry was implied. The fact that no time limit is prescribed for the issue of a warrant suggests that the Legislature expected sometime to elapse between the making of an application and the issue of a warrant and this lapse of time could be expected only if an enquiry was implied. 11. Thus, in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Judges in the cases mentioned above and the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., it may be said without any hesitation that the Legislature has not made it obligatory on the part of the Magistrate issuing warrant to serve a notice to the person by whom the maintenance allowance is payable in pursuance of the order passed under sub-sec. (1) of Section 125. The reason is obvious. The award of maintenance allowance under sub-sec. (1) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is for the purpose of saving the lives of the dependents from the calamity caused by starvation. Hunger and deprivations do not wait for the disposal of case by Courts. They occur according to laws of nature and the threat to life which they pose is immediate and I am not aware of any means invented by mankind which may defer Calamity and threat to life posed by starvation. The.Legislature must be presumed to have been award of this fact that since the maintenance allowance is granted for the purpose of saving the lives of the dependents, the maintenance allowance should be made payable as soon as possible lest the dependents might suffer hardship on account of the starvation and deprivations. I am, therefore, of the opinion that omission to enact a provision requiring the service of a notice to the person by whom the maintenance allowance is payable under sub-sec. (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is intentional and is not by over sight. There is yet another reason for not laying down the requirement of a notice in sub-sec. (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. 12. Judgments and orders of the Courts become enforceable as soon as they are pronounced. Whatever is required to be done in pursuance of these judgments and orders is to be done as soon as the judgments or the orders are pronounced. (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. 12. Judgments and orders of the Courts become enforceable as soon as they are pronounced. Whatever is required to be done in pursuance of these judgments and orders is to be done as soon as the judgments or the orders are pronounced. The execute ability of the orders passed by the Court cannot be made dependent on the service of a notice on the parties by whom compliance is required, because if that is done by avoiding the service of notice, the operation of the judgment orders may be completely avoided. 13. Keeping in view above reasons, the omission on the part of the Legislature to require that a notice should be served on the person by whom maintenance allowance is payable appears to be intentional and for good reasons. In none of the cases, which have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, these aspects have been considered and no such case has been brought to my notice in which it has been held that the operation of the judicial order is dependent upon the service of a notice on the person by whom the order is required to be obeyed. In this view of the matter as the law stands, the order passed by a competent Court under sub-sec. (1) of Section 125,Cr.P.C. becomes enforceable as soon as it is passed, unless the operation of the order/is stayed by a competent Court and the person against whom such an order is passed, is legally bound to pay the maintenance allowance granted under the order. It would not be in the interest of justice to say that notwithstanding the fact that a such judgment or order has been passed by a Court under sub-sec. (1) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., the liability of the person against whom the order is passed does not arise till another notice has been served upon him. 14. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not agree with this submission that a notice under sub-sec. (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be read in the words of sub-sec. (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. 15. 14. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not agree with this submission that a notice under sub-sec. (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be read in the words of sub-sec. (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. 15. What appears to be the reason for insisting upon the servide of a notice is the principle of natural justice that before any order adverse to a party is passed, that party should be given an opportunity of being heard, if in the facts and circumstances of the case it is necessary in the interest of justice. Application of general principles of natural justice is one thing and compliance of statutory provisions requiring a notice to be served is quite other. The distinction between the two is that if the Statute requires that a notice should be served within a certain time and in a certain manner,such provision, if held to be mandatory, would require strict compliance with the Statute and non-service of the notice in the manner prescribed by the law, would render the act as vitiated. On the other hand, where a_notice is considered necessary by application of the general principles of natural justice, the Court will have to see in each case, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case; whether the service of notice in that case was or was not necessary and even if it is necessary whether such service can or cannot be effected within a reasonable time so as not to occasion the abuse of the process of the Court. Regarding the application of general principles of natural justice no hard and fast rules can be applied. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case as to what kind of notice should be given and what step should be taken to comply with the principles of natural justice. In other words, in cases where the Courts insist upon the issue of notice, by application of general principles of natural justice, the Court will have to decide the manner in which the notice is to be served and the Court would have the right to ensure that the ends of justice are not defeated in any manner. 16. It is conceivable that in a given case, the husband after the passing of an order under sub-sec. 16. It is conceivable that in a given case, the husband after the passing of an order under sub-sec. (1) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. may leave the country and go to an unknown destination, thereby making it almost impossible to get a notice served upon him. He may abscond leaving his address with none, in order to escape the liability to pay the maintenance allowance or his abscondance may be for any other reason. In similar cases, if it is held that the order under sub-sec. (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be passed unless a notice is personally served on the person, I am afraid, the order passed by the Court under sub-sec. (1) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. would be rendered meaningless and the dependants for whose benefit the order was passed would suffer the deprivations and hardship. Ends of justice must therefore, be kept in view while applying the principles of natural justice to the facts of the case. I, therefore, respectfully agree with the observations made by Hon'ble Mr. M.C. Desai, J. in the case of Laxmi Narain v. State, AIR 1959 All. 556 and the observations made by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in V.P. Shivanna v. Bhadramma, 1993 Cr. L.J. 420 (Kar), by the learned Judges of this Court in Sher Mohammed v. Mst. Rohan, 1987 WLN (UC) 58 and Mahipal v. Smt. Laxmi Bai, WLN (UC) 70 should be read and understood in that light. 17. As regard the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, it appears that the amount of maintenance allowance was payable w.e.f. 4.12.1993. Smt. Gita was entitled to receive maintenance allowance @ Rs. 200/- per month and the non-petitioners Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 were entitled to receive the maintenance allowance @ Rs. 150/- per month. The learned Judicial Magistrate does not appear to have applied his mind to the question whether there was or was not any sufficient cause behind the failure on the part of the petitioner Chagan Lal to pay the maintenance allowance. The learned Judicial Magistrate does not appear to have taken into consideration the first proviso given in sub-sec. (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which requires that an application contemplated by that proviso must be moved within the prescribed time. There is yet another infirmity. The learned Judicial Magistrate does not appear to have taken into consideration the first proviso given in sub-sec. (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which requires that an application contemplated by that proviso must be moved within the prescribed time. There is yet another infirmity. The learned Judicial Magistrate has directed the issue of warrant, but what kind of warrant has been directed by him, is not made clear in the order, whether it is warrant of attachment or it is a warrant for the arrest of the petitioner. In view of the above infirmities of the order dated 23.6.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, I feel called upon to exercise the powers u /s. 482 Cr.P.C. and quash and set aside both the orders, the order dated 23.6.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate as well as the order dated 6.1.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge no. 1, Chittorgarh in criminal revision no. 128 /95 and remand the case to the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class with a direction that after giving opportunity to both the parties, he shall dispose of the application made by the non-petitioners, according to law. The petitioner has already been informed about the application and therefore, no further notice to him would be necessary. If he fails to appear in the lower Court to show cause why the amount of maintenance should not be recovered, he would have to thank himself.The petition is decided accordingly. Copy of this order be sent to the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh for information and necessary action.Petition allowed. *******