ARUNABHA BARUA, J. ( 1 ) THE judgment of the Court was as follows : this revisional application is directed against an order dated 30. 9. 2003 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Arambag, hooghly, in Misc. Case No. 109 of 2001 under Section 125 Cr. P. C. whereby the learned Magistrate had rejected the prayer of the petitioner-wife to grant her interim maintenance. ( 2 ) MINATI Dutta, the aggrieved wife, being denied of even an ad-interim maintenance in pursuance of her application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for regular maintenance, has brought this revision before this Court against her husband Amarnath Dutta @ Jhantu Dutta by name, who is the opposite party here. ( 3 ) IN her application before the learned Magistrate under Section 125 Cr. PC. , it is important here in this context, to note what the petitioner, minati Dutta had positively, specifically and in sufficient details, spelt out in her application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for maintenance. This may be summed up as under : (I) The petitioner, Minati claimed that she is the wife of the O. P. Amarnath and they were married on 21st Baisakh, 1368 B. S. as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. (ii) The lived as husband and wife at the house of the husband, i. e. the opposite party, sufficiently long and out of their wedlock a male child was born to them on 14th Jaistha, 1369 B. S. , the son's name is Prasanta Dutta. (Hi) After about six years of their marriage, when Prasanta was only five years of age her husband Amarnath had an extra-marital relationship with a woman, Dipali Haider by name. (iv) Subsequently, this Dipali Haider, the other woman, started living with O. P.-Amarnath as his mistress in the house of the opposite party and the wife Minati was subjected to physical and mental torture by them. (v) Subsequently the other woman, Dipali gave birth to two daughters, n'amely, Mousumi and Rinku, who were aged about 32 years and 26 years respectively. (vi) About 14/15 years ago the O. P.-Amarnath forcibly sent wife, minati to her mother's house with the threat that if Minati oppose the ways of Dipali, the mistress, the O. P.-husband would teach her a good lesson by causing extreme harm to the son, Prasanta. (vi) About 14/15 years ago the O. P.-Amarnath forcibly sent wife, minati to her mother's house with the threat that if Minati oppose the ways of Dipali, the mistress, the O. P.-husband would teach her a good lesson by causing extreme harm to the son, Prasanta. (vii) Minati, the wife, had to keep silent for the same of her son, Prasanta, and was regularly getting maintenance from the husband. (viii) Husband Amarnath has since retired and in his pension papers and others, the other woman, Dipali figured as his legally married wife. (ix) Petitioner, Minati filed an application before the service authorities of the opposite party, i. e. her husband and consequent upon this the husband stopped putting maintenance to Minati. (x) The petitioner-wife, Minati claims that she has no income of her own and she is now an old-ailing woman. The opposite party is an able-bodied, retired pension holder and he is also a rich man, earning Rs. 15,000/- per month from all sources including several rooms of his at Arambag which he has let out to tenants. (xi) In support of her case, petitioner, Minati, has filed several documents in proof of her marriage with Amarnath as well as the fact that it was amarnath who had fathered their child, Prasanta, such as election identity card and copy of voters' list showing that minati Dutta is the wife of O. P.-Amarnath Dutta, an affidavit dated 12. 11. 2002 of one Biswanath Dutta, brother of the said Amarnath dutta showing that marriage between Minati and Amarnath took place on 21st Baisakh 1368 B. S. and that Prasanta was the son of amarnath, another affidavit dated 21. 4. 2002 of one Sri Dipak Haider, a full blood brother of Dipali, the other woman, to show that Minati is the legal wife of Amarnath and Dipali is not the legal wife of Amarnath and further that Prasanta is the son of Minati and Amarnath, one ration card dated 17. 10. 87 showing that Minati Dutta is the wife of amarnath Dutta, a certificate of the Councillor of Arambag Municipality dated 25. 12. 2000 showing that Minati is the wife of Amarnath, one identity card dated 24. 12. 10. 87 showing that Minati Dutta is the wife of amarnath Dutta, a certificate of the Councillor of Arambag Municipality dated 25. 12. 2000 showing that Minati is the wife of Amarnath, one identity card dated 24. 12. 95 of Prasanta Dutta issued by the Election commission of India showing that Prasanta is the son of Amarnath, similarly one ration card of Prasanta Dutta also shows he is the son of Amarnath Dutta, one certificate of Head Master of Arambag High school (H. S.) dated 21. 12. 94 which shows Prasanta as the son of amarnath and this certificate was issued because the opposite party, amarnath declared at the school that Prasanta was his son. (xii) Some photographs of O. P.-Amarnath Dutta with his son, prasanta, daughter-in-law (Prasanta's wife), grandson and granddaughter (son and daughter of Prasanta) which shows O. P.-Amarnath dutta was present or directly involved in their religious ceremonies of Prasanta, his son. (xiii) There are several other documents such as these to show similar facts as above in favour of the petitioner, Minati. (xiv) On the basis of these allegations petitioner-Minati prayed before the learned Magistrate for granting interim maintenance from the O. P.-husband at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month during interim period that is till her petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. is disposed of upon hearing both sides. ( 4 ) BEFORE the learned Magistrate the O. P.-husband also came up with a written objection denying all the material allegations of the petitioner- minati. According to him, Minati was not entitled to any interim maintenance. The main reasons were as follows : (i) That there was no marriage between him and Minati but minati was the legally married wife of one Amiya Dutta and they live as husband and wife at Parul, Arambag, Hooghly and out of their wedlock one daughter was born on 13. 11. 70 at the Arambag Hospital. (ii) O. P.-Amarnath claims that Dipali Dutta (the other woman) is his legally married wife and that out of his wedlock with Dipali two daughters, namely, Mousumi and Rinku were born. (iii) The O. P. contends that he never resided with Minati and prasanta is not his son. (iv) The O. P. claims that he earns only Rs. 3,018/- per month from his pension. (v) The O. P. is not bound to give any maintenance to the petitioner, Minati. (iii) The O. P. contends that he never resided with Minati and prasanta is not his son. (iv) The O. P. claims that he earns only Rs. 3,018/- per month from his pension. (v) The O. P. is not bound to give any maintenance to the petitioner, Minati. (vi) In support of his contention the O. P. has also filed several documents such as certificate of Councillor of Arambag Municipality, certificate of S. D. O. , Arambag, affidavits, copy of voter's identity card, one ration card in the name of Dipali Dutta, one ration card of Rinku dutta and a certificate of marriage in between Amarnath and Dipali dated 18. 1. 94. ( 5 ) THE bone of contention here before us is only limited to the point of payment of some interim maintenance to the wife by the husband. ( 6 ) MINATI, who has filed the instant revisional application claims that she is the wife of Amarnath Dutta, the opposite party, and it was she who filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. being Misc. Case No. 109 of 2001 before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Arambag, hooghly. She prayed before the learned Magistrate to grant her interim maintenance from the opposite party-husband @ Rs. 1,500/- per month for herself. She made it clear in her long application for interim maintenance that her marriage with the opposite party, that is Amarnath Dutta, took place on 21 st Baisakh, 1368 B. S. after preforming all rituals of Hindu custom. ( 7 ) THE matter got complicated with another woman by the name of dipali coming on the scene. Amarnath Dutta, the opposite party has contended that Minati was somebody else's wife and not his and that, in fact, he is legally wedded to Dipali. ( 8 ) NOW, the short point is whether Minati could legitimately claim interim maintenance for her bare living pending final disposal of the application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. with regard to the regular maintenance to be paid or not to be paid to Minati by her alleged husband, Amarnath dutta. ( 9 ) IT may be borne in mind in deciding the question of payment of interim maintenance that Section 125 Cr. P. C. does not spell out any provision for interim maintenance. P. C. with regard to the regular maintenance to be paid or not to be paid to Minati by her alleged husband, Amarnath dutta. ( 9 ) IT may be borne in mind in deciding the question of payment of interim maintenance that Section 125 Cr. P. C. does not spell out any provision for interim maintenance. The Apex Court of the country in Smt. Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 984, ruled that in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr. PC. , interim maintenance pending final disposal of the application can be granted. The Suprema Court held, that if the Magistrate is satisfied that there is a prima facie case in support of claim for interim maintenance, an order granting interim maintenance can and should be made. ( 10 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner-Minati Dutta has assailed the impugned order dated 30. 9. 2003 passed by the learned S. D. J. M. , arambag, Hooghly, whereby the learned Magistrate by an elaborate order rejected the prayer of interim maintenance. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate had totally ignored the host of documents filed by the petitioner-Minati in support of her case for maintenance, that he did not at all take into consideration the theory of prima facie test and had illegally denied the petitioner the interim maintenance as prayed for. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner an interim maintenance Rs. 1,500/- per month should have been granted to the petitioner-wife. ( 11 ) THE learned Advocate for the O. P.-husband, oh the other hand, submits that the dispute is an exceptional one when the marriage between the parties is itself seriously in question. He further submits that there is no hard and fast rule that in any event, interim maintenance has to be awarded, that the application by the wife claiming maintenance is false and perverse and the impugned order of the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality and by an elaborate order the learned Magistrate had rightly rejected the prayer for maintenance. ( 12 ) I am afraid, in the minds of the learned Magistrate the whole idea of granting interim maintenance to the wife is totally misconceived. No doubt the marriage of Minati with Amarnath i. e. the applicant and the opposite party here is disputed. ( 12 ) I am afraid, in the minds of the learned Magistrate the whole idea of granting interim maintenance to the wife is totally misconceived. No doubt the marriage of Minati with Amarnath i. e. the applicant and the opposite party here is disputed. That indeed pertains to the actual and legal marital status between the parties which can only be appropriately and finally decided in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. A proceeding under section 125 Cr. P. C. neither contemplates nor provides any real answer to this. It is only the prima facie satisfaction of the Magistrate dealing with such proceedings for maintenance to the so-called wives that matters. ( 13 ) EVEN when the Magistrate takes up an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. to consider and determine whether a regular maintenance as prayed for should be allowed to the petitioner-wife and if so, what should be the quantum of maintenance, he has to be satisfied only about the making out of a prima facie case by the alleged wife and need not and must not delve deep into the merits of the matrimonial dispute. In Rajathi v. C. Ganesan, AIR 1999 SC 2374 : 1999 Cri LJ 3668, the Supreme Court held that in a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 Cr. P. C. , trial Court is to take a prima facie view of the matter and need not go into the matrimonial disputes between the parties in detail. ( 14 ) SECTION 125 Cr. P. C. is a piece of social welfare legislation that provides a quick and summary remedy to protect the applicant against starvation and to tide over immediate difficulties. In the words of Sir James fitzstephen the provision of this legislation is only "a mode of preventing vagrancy, or atleast of preventing its consequences". The whole object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to the society in respect of his wife and children. ( 15 ) IN granting such a relief under Section 125 Cr. The whole object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to the society in respect of his wife and children. ( 15 ) IN granting such a relief under Section 125 Cr. P. C. , particularly interim relief by way of an interim order of maintenance, the focus should be on the applicant-wife trying to make out a prima facie case that she is married to the opposite party-husband and that she desperately needs the money by way of the speedy justice seeking to ensure that being a neglected wife, unable to maintain herself, she is not left beggared and destituted on the scrap-hip of society and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and may be crime for her bare subsistence. ( 16 ) IMPORTANTLY, in this backdrop of things, the Supreme Court has this to say in Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, AIR 1986 p. 986, para 6. "it is the duty of the Court to interpret the provisions in Chapter 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. 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 cannotexist.) Vide Earl Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law 1959 Edn. p. 1797. 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 cannotexist.) Vide Earl Jowitt'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. " this observation of the Supreme Court is with regard to the justification of granting interim maintenance in view of the urgency of the claim made by the wife in the exigency of each situation and her poor predicament. ( 17 ) IT is abundantly clear from the application of the petitioner, Minati, and the host of documents that have earlies been referred to, that she could at least satisfy her prima facie case in support of her claim for at least an urgent interim maintenance. But the learned Magistrate though took stock of her allegations and the documents, dismissed her claim for an interim maintenance for no cogent ground. He rather waited for the evidence to be adduced by both the parties at the full hearing of the matter to decide the question of maintenance. But that was, to my mind, an erroneous approach being oblivious of the whole purpose for which Section 125 Cr. P. C. was legislated. The learned Magistrate also did not plainly adhere to the main objectives of granting interim maintenance to the wife in the urgency of the situation. But that was, to my mind, an erroneous approach being oblivious of the whole purpose for which Section 125 Cr. P. C. was legislated. The learned Magistrate also did not plainly adhere to the main objectives of granting interim maintenance to the wife in the urgency of the situation. I think, on the basis of prima facie materials and the positive assertion of the petitioner, the petitioner-Minati was certainly entitled to get an order of interim maintenance awating final disposal of the matter by evidence and proof. ( 18 ) IT is true that there is no hard and fast rule for granting interim maintenance. Or, in other words, it cannot be said that in each and every case, the woman claiming herself as a wife of the opposite party must get interim maintenance. But the cardinal point is, the relief by way of an interim. maintenance is mainly a discretionary relief derived from the "implied power" of the Magistrate under Section 125 Cr. P. C. , as the Supreme Court has said. ( 19 ) AND in dealing with such prayers of interim maintenance by the so- called distressed wife allegedly driven to destitution and vagrancy, the application for interim maintenance and the allegations and other materials in support thereof in favour of the woman should be taken at their face value and not on an in-depth enquiry or assessment in respect thereof by the learned Courts below. A socialistic legislation that Section 125 Cr. P. C. essentially is, its objects and purposes must place our mind-set right before granting the urgent relief of interim maintenance can be taken care of by the Courts. After all, the constitutional mandate is not only for a right to live but to live with human dignity. In the context of social welfare legislation, it assumes paramount importance with the human element in the heart of law that dictates the Court's conscience. It is the basic human rights of a woman to live with at least the bare minimum and with basic human dignity that have to be cherished and protected, specially in cases and situations like this. It is the basic human rights of a woman to live with at least the bare minimum and with basic human dignity that have to be cherished and protected, specially in cases and situations like this. ( 20 ) IT looks, that both the parties are aged persons, when the petitioner- minati is said to be a lady of 57, O. P.-Amarnath is a retired, old Government servant living on his pension as it now looks, subject to further finding when the evidence come about in disposing the application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. Considering this, I think the petitioner-Minati is entitled to get a sum of rs. 500/- per month from the date of her application for interim maintenance before the Court of learned S. D. J. M. , Arambag, Hooghly. ( 21 ) ACCORDINGLY, the revisional application is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Magistrate dated 30. 9. 2003 dismissing the claim of the petitioner-wife is hereby set aside. The petitioner (Minati) is entitled to get interim maintenance Rs. 500/- per month from the opposite party-Amarnath Dutta from the date of her application for interim maintenance, till the disposal of the application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. by her against the opposite party-Amarnath dutta. It is further directed that the arrears of interim maintenance, if may, shall have to be paid within 60 days from the date of communication of this order. The current amount of interim maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month has to be paid month by month till the disposal of the main application under section 125 Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate is further directed to dispose of the claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of communication of this order. It is further made clear that the learned Magistrate shall dispose of the application uunder section 125 Cr. P. C. by the petitioner-Minati strictly on merits and in accordance with law, independently of the observations that are made in this judgment by this Court. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties. J. C. --- *** --- . about:blank 18-06-2009