JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard learned counsel for both the parties and this application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. is disposed of at the stage of admission on consent and active participation of both the parties. 2. It may not be a case of rare instance where old aged parents claim maintenance from a son by knocking the door of the Court where both the parties express justification in respect of their action, that is to say, parents claiming for maintenance on the ground of negligence and refusal by the son to maintain and son defending the issue by stating about unreasonable attitude of the parents. This is a case of that nature. The order dated 24.1.2000 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur in refusing a chance to the petitioner to contest the case and the confirming order of learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Criminal Revision No. 27 of 2000, is before this Court for considering u/s 482, Cr.P.C. Technically speaking, the application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in view of bar under Sub-section (3) of Section 397, Cr.P.C. inasmuch as petitioner is unable to show any illegality in the impugned order which has the effect of defeating the ends of justice. But, keeping in view the relationship between the parties and the ground of solution to that, this Court invokes the inherent power and disposes of the case as per the following order. 3. As stated by the petitioner, he is one of the sons of the opposite party members. As per the order of this Court he has already deposited Rs. 7,000/- (seven thousand) and since July, 2002 he is making regular payment of interim maintenance @ Rs. 500/-(five hundred) per month to each of his parents. Learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand though calculates the arrear interim maintenance on a very higher side but does not oppose to the offer for payment of another sum of Rs. 3,000/-(three thousand) by the petitioner towards the arrear interim maintenance besides making regular payment of interim maintenance till disposal of the proceeding u/s 125, Cr.P.C. This Court feels ends of justice will be properly and proportionately be served if the parties adhere to that arrangement. 4. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid submission of the parties, it is directed that if the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 4. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid submission of the parties, it is directed that if the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand) by 16th September, 2001 and shall go on paying the interim monthly maintenance as per the order of the learned Magistrate, then learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur shall do well to allow the petitioner an opportunity to file written statement contesting to the claim of maintenance made by the opposite party members. Petitioner may be granted adjournment for that purpose for any length of period he desires, but that shall always be subject to payment of interim monthly maintenance regularly. A single default by the petitioner in that respect shall disentitle him from claiming further chance either for filing the show-cause or for contesting in the hearing of the case unless as a pre-condition shall deposit the entire arrear interim maintenance. On the other hand, if the petitioner shall file his counter and will show his readiness for disposal of the proceeding, then learned S.D.J.M. shall take up the case for hearing and dispose of the same, as far as practicable, within a period of three months from the date of filing of the written statement/show cause. If during that period any dilatory tactices shall be adopted by the opposite party members which shall result in non-disposal of the application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. in time then after expiry of that period on appropriate application if moved by the petitioner learned S.D.J.M. may consider to recall, rescind or modify the order of interim maintenance appropriately. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be granted time till September 16th, 2002 to pay/deposit the above noted sum of Rs. 3,000/-. That prayer is allowed. 5. The aforesaid arrangement if shall be worked out by September 16th, 2002, then the Non-Bailable warrant of. Arrest and Distress Warrant issued against the petitioner in Misc. Case No. 134 of 1998 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Berhampur shall stand recalled and till 16th September, 2002 that order shall be kept in abeyance. 6. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of accordingly.