JUDGMENT Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant-husband i.e. opponent in Misc. Criminal Case No.87/2008 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramtek, prays for exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing and setting aside the part of order dated 13.3.2012 passed in Criminal Revision No.117/2011 directing him to pay interim maintenance to the opponent-wife until said proceedings remanded to the trial court are decided. 3. On 26.5.2008, the opponent-wife applied to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramtek under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the applicant-husband to pay her maintenance. The said application was decided vide order dated 29.11.2010 and the applicant was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the opponent-wife from the date of application preferred as well as the costs of Rs.300/-. The applicant-husband preferred above referred application in revision against the said order. 4. Mr. Gupte, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that though the matter was settled on 28.10.2010 and by the settlement arrived amongst other the opponent-wife agreed for withdrawal of an application for maintenance preferred by her before the Court of Magistrate, the said fact remained to be brought to the notice of Magistrate and the order of maintenance in favour of the opponent-wife came to be passed. He further submitted that as a matter of fact, the wife, as per the settlement arrived, ought to have withdrawn the said application even before passing of order thereon. He submitted that since the proceeding before the trial court were culminated. applicant-husband had no choice but to prefer an application in revision challenging the said order by bringing to the notice of the Court of Session the settlement arrived. It is submitted that, after taking into account of said aspect, Court of Session rightly quashed and set aside the order of maintenance passed in favour of the opponent-wife and remanded the matter back to the trial court for deciding it in light of contentions raised regarding settlement arrived. 5. It is the grievance of Mr. It is submitted that, after taking into account of said aspect, Court of Session rightly quashed and set aside the order of maintenance passed in favour of the opponent-wife and remanded the matter back to the trial court for deciding it in light of contentions raised regarding settlement arrived. 5. It is the grievance of Mr. Gupte that the Court of Session additionally ordered the applicant to pay interim maintenance from the date of application preferred before the trial court at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month till the said proceedings remanded by the Court of Session were decided by the trial court. It is further the grievance that since question of receiving the maintenance after arriving of settlement was remanded for decision of the trial court in light of rival contentions i.e. the contention of the applicant that due to settlement arrived, wife is not entitled to receive such maintenance and the rival contentions of wife being entitled to receive the said maintenance in view of applicant allegedly having not acted upon the terms of contention, the Sessions Court manifestly erred in passing such an interim order in favour of opponent-wife. The learned counsel for the applicant urged that passing of such an oppressive order was unwarranted, improper on part of Court of Sessions and said part of said order of remand be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. Ashirgade, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that it is a common experience that helpless wives are made to rush repeatedly to the court for enforcing the order of maintenance passed in their favour and as such passing of such an order by Court of Sessions cannot be faulted. It is submitted that since the order itself denotes that it was an interim payment ordered, appropriate orders can be passed, while deciding the main application in event of applicant being successful before the trial court. It is thus contended that as such no prejudice would be caused to the applicant-husband if the said order is maintained and hence the application be dismissed. 7. It is thus contended that as such no prejudice would be caused to the applicant-husband if the said order is maintained and hence the application be dismissed. 7. After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced and perusing the order of Court of Sessions, it is amply clear that the Court of Sessions remanded the matter to the trial court in view of the event occurred during the pendency of proceeding before the trial court was not brought to the notice of the trial court when the order dated 29.11.2010 was passed. Having regard to the same, the Court of Sessions, by keeping the contentions open, remanded the matter back and as such no fault can be found with the said part of order of remand. 8. Now, with regard to the remaining part of said order, though the peculiar circumstance of the case requires passing of some order protecting the rights of opponent-wife, still the order directing to make the payment at such a rate without deciding the issue as to what were the terms and conditions of settlement arrived, was wholly unjustified and improper. As a matter of fact, the balance could have been achieved by ordering the applicant to deposit the amount at such a rate before the trial court for safeguarding the rights of the opponent-wife. Thus, except to such extent, no interference is warranted with the order of remand by exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Resultantly, the applicant, instead of paying the maintenance at the rate as ordered by the Court of Sessions, is directed to deposit such an amount by way of interim maintenance before the trial court for safeguarding the rights of opponent-wife. The trial court shall not allow the opponent-wife to withdraw the said amount without hearing the applicant in the said matter. Except the above stated modification, the rest of order passed by the Court of Sessions, stands unmodified. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the trial court is directed to decide the matter remanded within a period of four months from today. 10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs. Ordered accordingly.