JUDGMENT 1. - Instant Criminal Revision is filed by Revisionist Gopal Sain (husband), against the judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, on 21.11.1998, whereby the order dated 6.12.1996, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hindaun City, was set aside and interim maintenance of Rs. 500/- p.m. was awarded w.e.f. 3.6.1996. 2. Brief facts relating to this case are that Veena Rani is wife of Gopal Sain. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for interim maintenance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First, Class. Hindaun City. Reply was filed by husband in that proceedings. After hearing, the said application was rejected by the learned Magistrate. Against that order, wife filed revision before the learned Sessions Court, which was accepted and the husband was ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- p.m. to wife. Hence, this Criminal Revision filed by husband Gopal Sain. 3. Files of both the courts below were called for. Arguments were heard, entire record was examined and I considered rival contentions of both the parties. 4. Counsel for the revisionist has argued that marriage between the parties took place on 21st June, 1977. It is argued that it is not the husband who has neglected the wife but it is the wife who has neglected the husband, therefore, wife is not entitled for interim maintenance. It is also argued that the husband is even today ready to keep his with him. It is further argued that it is wrong to say that wife is unable to maintain herself because she is gainfully employed and serving as Nurse in a Nursing Home in Hindaun City and this fact is fully proved by a letter, which was written by the wife to some one. It is also argued that wife is living in adultery, therefore, also she is not entitled for interim maintenance. 5. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rohtas Singh v. Smt. Ramendri and others (I) (2000) DMC 338 (S.C.) , and argued that Hon. Supreme court has held in this case that wife can claim maintenance only if she is unable to maintain herself. It is also held by the Hon. Supreme Court that she would not be entitled for maintenance if she is living in adultery. 6. It is also held by the Hon. Supreme Court that she would not be entitled for maintenance if she is living in adultery. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the non-petitioner wife has argued that this revision is against the order of interim maintenance, where the Court has to see only whether there is a prima-facie case for making such an order. It is argued that her prima facie case is proved by her affidavit. It is also argued that the letter produced by the petitioner (husband) is forged one. It is admitted fact that non-petitioner is wife of petitioner and it is also admitted case of the husband that both of them are living separately. It is argued that there is a prima facie case in favour of the wife which proves that she has been neglected by the husband. Her injury report and affidavit are on the record. It is wrong to say that wife is living in adultery and that she is working as a Nurse. The matter would be decided finally after recording the evidence of both the parties and learned Sessions Court has only granted an interim maintenance. 7. I have heard arguments of both the parties. On the question of interim maintenance there is an important judgment of Hon. Supreme court in Smt. Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, reported in AIR 1986 SC 984 , wherein Hon. Supreme court has held as under: "6. In view of the foregoing it is the duty of the Court to interpret the provisions in Chap. IX of the Code in such a way that the construction placed on them would not defeat the very object of the legislation. In the absence of any express prohibition, it is appropriate to construe the provisions in Chapter IX as conferring an implied power on the Magistrate to direct the person against whom an application is made under section 125 of the Code to pay some reasonable sum by way of maintenance to the applicant pending final disposal of the application. It is quite common that applications made under section 125 of the Code also take several months for being disposed of finally. It is quite common that applications made under section 125 of the Code also take several months for being disposed of finally. In order to enjoy the fruits of the proceedings under section 125, the applicant should be alive till the date of the final order and that the applicant can do in a large number of cases only if an order for payment of interim maintenance is passed by the Court. Every Court must be deemed to possess by necessary intendment all such powers as are necessary to make its orders effective. This principle is embodied in the maxim ubi aliquid conceditur, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (Where anything is conceded, there is conceded also anything without which the thing itself cannot exist). Vide Earl Jowqitt's Dictionary of English Law 1959 Edn. p. 1797). Whenever anything is required to be done by law and it is found impossible to do that thing unless something not authorised in express terms be also done then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Such a construction though it may not always be admissible in the present case however would advance the object of the legislation under consideration. A contrary view is likely to result in grave hardship to the applicant, who may have no means to subsist until the final order is passed. There is no room for the apprehension that the recognition of such implied power would lead to the passing of interim orders in a large number of cases where the liability to pay maintenance may not exist. It is quite possible that such contingency may arise in a few cases but the prejudice caused thereby to the person against whom it is made is minimal as it can be set right quickly after hearing both the parties.. The Magistrate may, however, insist upon an affidavit being filed by or on behalf of the applicant concerned stating the grounds in support of the claim for interim maintenance to satisfy himself that there is a prima facie case for making such an order. Such a order may also be made in an appropriate case ex parte pending service or notice of the application subject to any modification or even an order of cancellation that may be passed after the respondent is heard. Such a order may also be made in an appropriate case ex parte pending service or notice of the application subject to any modification or even an order of cancellation that may be passed after the respondent is heard. If a Civil Court can pass such interim orders on affidavits, there is no reason why a Magistrate should not rely on them for the purpose of issuing directions regarding payment of interim maintenance. The affidavit may be treated as supplying prima facie proof of the case of the applicant. If the allegations in the application or the affidavit are not true, it is always open to the person against whom such an order is made to show that the order is unsustainable. Having regard to the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by a Magistrate under Section 125 of the Code, we feel that the said provision should be interpreted as conferring power by necessary implication on the Magistrate to pass an order directing a person against whom an application is made under it to pay a reasonable sum by way of interim maintenance subject to the other conditions referred to the pending final disposal of the application." 8. On this point, there is another judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court of Jagdish Kaur @ Rama v. Vijay Kumar reported in (2000) DMC 703 . In this case, Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the point whether husband has neglected wife or not, will be finally decided only after evidence is adduced. The same problem was before that Bench. In that judgment a case of Hon. Supreme Court is also referred. 9. In Rahathi v. C. Ganesan (1993 (3) Crimes 1999 (3) Crimes 189 (SC) , Hon. Supreme Court has laid down guide lines for the Magistrate, how he should appreciate and assess the evidence and what should be his approach in deciding the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 10. In my view, in the application for interim maintenance, matter is decided on the basis of affidavit and at that stage, Court has to be see only whether there is a prima facie case for making such an order. In the present case, there is no dispute that parties are husband and wife and that they are living separately. The question comes as to whether wife has neglected the husband or the husband has neglected the wife. In the present case, there is no dispute that parties are husband and wife and that they are living separately. The question comes as to whether wife has neglected the husband or the husband has neglected the wife. Wife has produced injury report. Both the parties have filed their affidavits. This question can be decided finally only after recording evidence of both the parties. In the same way, on another point, whether wife is unable to maintain herself, husband has produced a letter, which is said to have been written by wife and it is said that in this letter, there is an admission of wife that she is employed. On the other hand, wife says that this letter is forged one. I am of the view that such letter can not be a conclusive proof of this fact at this stage and this matter can also be decided finally after recording the evidence of both the parties. 11. In the same way, the question whether wife is living in adultery, will also be decided after recording evidence of both the parties. In my view, at this stage, on the basis of evidence already on record, it can not be said that she is living in adultery, therefore, she is not entitled for interim maintenance. This is a Criminal Revision before High Court and High Court has limited power in such cases. High Court in revisional jurisdiction should interfere only in exceptional cases in which the judgment of lower court is illegal or perverse. In my view the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge dated 21.11.1998, is neither illegal nor perverse. 12. In the result, there is no merit in this revision. The same is dismissed. 13. Since more than five years have passed when application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed before the Magistrate, and till now, no witness has been examined, it is a bad state of affair. Trial Court is directed to decide the case positively within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of . this order alongwith record. 14. Registry is directed to send the files of both the Lower Courts through some special messenger immediately. 15. Respondent is directed to adduce her evidence on the date fixed, by the Lower Court.Revision petition dismissed. *******