Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. Though I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents at length, it is not necessary to discuss the rival contentions in depth in the view that I am taking. The petitioner who has been ordered to pay maintenance to his wife Parigabai and daughter Yogita the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, by the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vaijapur under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being aggrieved thereby had approached the Court of Sessions in revision challenging the said order. His revision application also came to be dismissed and therefore, he has approached this court invoking its Constitutional jurisdiction. 3. In the oral submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, his learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is a disabled person and that, he is not having sufficient means. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the aspect of the permanent disability of the petitioner was not properly highlighted and projected before the learned Magistrate during the course of the inquiry that was held. She submits that the petitioner requires to spend considerable amount on his own medical treatment which was not properly pointed out in the course of inquiry before the Magistrate. 4. After considering all the relevant aspects of the matter since all that has been submitted is that, the matter may be remanded back to the Magistrate by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to produce additional evidence in support of his contention about his disability and the consequent expenses required to be done by him for his own medical treatment. I am inclined to remand the matter back. It, however, needs to be clarified that even the respondents shall be free to adduce such further evidence as they may think necessary to adduce. 5. In the result, Writ Petition is partly allowed. The matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate who shall hold further inquiry into the matter by giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidence in the matter. It is clarified that the order of maintenance as has been passed by the learned Magistrate, shall continue to operate as an interim order during the pendency of the further proceedings before the Magistrate. It is clarified that the order of maintenance as has been passed by the learned Magistrate, shall continue to operate as an interim order during the pendency of the further proceedings before the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate shall decide the question of maintenance particularly, in the light of the claim of the petitioner of his not being possessed of sufficient means by reason of his own physical disability and the consequent expenditure required to be incurred by him for his own medical treatment. The learned Magistrate shall decide the matter afresh, in accordance with this order, within a period of FOUR MONTHS, from the receipt of this order by him. 6. Rule is made absolute accordingly.