JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhubaneswar dated 8.9.2000, rejecting the Petitioners application u/s 125(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is assailed by the Petitioner in the present application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is the contention of Dr. G. Tripathy. learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in view of Sub-section (5) Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code'), the learned Magistrate ought to have considered the same on its own merit, but could not have rejected it on the ground that such a petition in the Execution proceeding was not maintainable in law. Mr. K.P. Nana, learned Counsel for opp. parties 2 to 4 however submits that an application u/s 125(5) of the Code in an Execution proceeding for implementation of an order of maintenance passed u/s 125(1) of the Code and confirmed by this Court, could not be maintained and as such, the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the same. It is his contention that in the process even though the order of the learned Magistrate directing payment of maintenance in favour of the wife and two minor children, and it was concluded and confirmed by this Court rejecting the stand of the Petitioner-husband that opp. party No. 2 is not the. married wife of the Petitioner nor opp. parties 3 and 4 are his children and as such he is not liable to pay maintenance, the opp. parties are deprived of the benefit of the order passed by the Court even for their bare existence. 3. The short facts of the case leading to the present application are that opp. party No. 2, the wife and Opp. parties 3 and 4, minor daughters of the Petitioner filed an application u/s 125(1) of the code for grant of maintenance and the learned J.M.F.C, Bhubaneswar allowed the application granting Rs. 300/- as maintenance for opp. party No. 2 and Rs. 200/- each for maintenance of opp. parties 3 and 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate the Petitioner preferred a Revision before the learned Sessions Judge. Bhubaneswar numbered as Criminal Revision No. 2 of. 1999, but that was dismissed ex parte by order dated 1.5.1999. The Petitioner as against the said order moved this Court in Criminal Misc. parties 3 and 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate the Petitioner preferred a Revision before the learned Sessions Judge. Bhubaneswar numbered as Criminal Revision No. 2 of. 1999, but that was dismissed ex parte by order dated 1.5.1999. The Petitioner as against the said order moved this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3769 of 1999 and this Court by judgment dated 21.6.2000 rejected the application by holding in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment as follows: 4. Both the Courts below have found that opposite party No. 1 has successfully proved her marriage with the present Petitioner and the allegation that the Petitioner has neglected in maintaining opposite party No. 1 as well as the two minor daughters-Opp. parties 2 and 3 and accordingly the trial Court directed payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- to opp. Party No. 1 and Rs. 200/- to each of the minor daughters. The revisional Court after considering the evidence on record also agreed with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the revision. 5. I have perused the findings of both the Courts below and find no infirmity in the findings which are based on evidence available on record. In view of the evidence available on record and the findings of the Courts below, I have no reason to differ with such findings. I do not find any merit in the Criminal Misc. Case which is accordingly dismissed. Thus, the order of the learned Magistrate granting maintenance u/s 125(1) of the Code has attained its finality. The applicant-wife though filed an application for execution of that order the Petitioner-husband in the said proceeding filed an application for a direction to the Petitioner-wife to remain with him since he is ready and willing to maintain her instead of paying maintenance. The learned Magistrate has rejected that petition holding that such a relief is not available in the Execution proceeding. The said order is in challenge in this petition. 4. The moot question for determination in this case is as to whether, in an Execution proceeding for implementation of the order passed u/s 125(1) of the Code, an application under Sub-section (5) of Section 125 of the Code be maintained and determined before the learned Magistrate decides to proceed with the execution. 5. 4. The moot question for determination in this case is as to whether, in an Execution proceeding for implementation of the order passed u/s 125(1) of the Code, an application under Sub-section (5) of Section 125 of the Code be maintained and determined before the learned Magistrate decides to proceed with the execution. 5. On proof of any of the three circumstances enumerated in Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 125 of the Code a Maintenance order can be cancelled by the Magistrate who made the order or his successor. In an order of maintenance under Sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code is made it has to operate unless and until it is vacated or cancelled under Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 125 of the Code or alter u/s 127 of the Code and it is enforceable and no plea in the interagnum can hold good as a valid defence to the execution of the order Sub-section (5) concerns the period subsequent to the passing of the order of maintenance. The order, if any, cancelling the order of maintenance is effective only from the date of the order of cancellation. The period for which the execution is sought, therefore could not be affected till the date when an order, if any, is passed cancelling the order ct maintenance. Here in the case at hand the husband-Petitioner resisted the application for maintenance on the plea that she is not the legally married wife nor the two children were born out of their wed lock. He appears not to have made an offer at that time when the applications was being considered to maintain them if they lived with him. In any event, the application, if any, under Sub-section (5) of Section 125 of the Code is to be made before the Magistrate who passed the order of maintenance or his successor in office. The Execution proceeding was for enforcement of the order of maintenance passed in favour of the wife and two children and as such, even if an order of cancellation of the maintenance is passed, it is from a prospective date only and becomes effective from the date it is passed. The Execution proceeding was for enforcement of the order of maintenance passed in favour of the wife and two children and as such, even if an order of cancellation of the maintenance is passed, it is from a prospective date only and becomes effective from the date it is passed. An application under Sub-section (5) of Section 125 of the Code can be filed by the husband against whom an order of maintenance is passed as an independent application before the learned Magistrate who passed the order of maintenance or his successor, but not in an Execution proceeding for implementation of such order of maintenance and if he proves the circumstances enumerated in Sub-section (5) the order granting maintenance can be cancelled. But unless and until the order of maintenance is cancelled, it is effective and enforceable in the execution proceeding. The application of the Petitioner that he is ready and willing to maintain the wife and the wife should be directed to live with him cannot be construed as an application under Sub-section (5) of Section 125 of the Code as contended. 6. In such view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the learned Magistrate calling for interference of this Court in the present application u/s 482 of the Code and accordingly this Criminal Misc. Case is rejected. The interim order passed in this case, therefore, stands vacated. The learned Magistrate shall proceed with the case promptly. Final Result : Dismissed