Order.- This revision application is filed by the husband against whom proceedings in execution for realisation of the amount awarded as maintenance have been taken. His contention is that his offer to maintain his wife on condition ofher living with him in accordance with the Proviso to sub-section (3) of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, had been made, but the same has not been considered. The learned Munsif-Magistrate of Madhira has disposed of this contention by stating that a similar objection in the original proceedings was taken by this petitioner and as regards the genuineness of that offer there has been an adjudication then, it is not necessary for him to consider the same. But I am of the opinion that the lower Court acted illegally in not considering the merits of this offer afresh. Sub-section (3) of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, in so far as is relevant states: “(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 manner hereinbefore 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 made: Provided 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 under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.” The proviso to that sub-section enunciates a salutary principle of Courts having to consider the offers made by the husband to take back the wife and maintain her and if necessary uphold the wife’s right to refuse such an offer only when the Court is satisfied that there is just ground for so refusing. In my view, the intendment of this provision is for affording as many opportunities as possible by the Court for composing the differences between the husband and wife. In my view, the intendment of this provision is for affording as many opportunities as possible by the Court for composing the differences between the husband and wife. When such is the purpose, the duty cast upon the Court to enquire into the matters arising cut of such an offer or to state reasons for refusal of that offer should not be brushed aside merely on the ground that on earlier occasions or in the original application demanding maintenance such offer or offers have been considered. It is no doubt that in this Proviso to sub-section (3), it is stated that the Magistrate may consider. But having regard to the nature of the provision, I believe that when offers are made by the husband they cannot be summarily ignored and the use of the word ‘may’ should not be taken in aid to follow such a course by the Court. To my mind, the use of the word ‘may’ in that Proviso is only with reference to the discretion given to the Court in respect of consideration of the reasons for the refusal pleaded by the wife. I have, therefore, to hold that the lower Court failed to perform the duty imposed upon it by the Proviso to sub-section (3), of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. In the result, the petition is allowed and the lower Court is directed to consider the offer of the husband in accordance with law before enforcing the order for maintenance. A.B.K. ----- Petition allowed.