JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Through the instant Criminal Revision Petition, the Petitioner makes a prayer for setting aside the orders pronounced respectively on 7.10.2016 and on 18.10.2016 by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb in Cr.MA No. 8-IV/15, whereunder, for non compliance(s) by the Petitioner with the orders pronounced under the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., he was successively committed to judicial custody. 2. Evidently, orders stood pronounced by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, in respect of interim maintenance vis-a-vis the respondent herein, interim maintenance(s) whereof were quantified in a sum of Rs. 42,000/-, and were assessed w.e.f. 3.10.2013 to 3.12.2014. Before proceeding to adjudicate upon the legality of the impugned orders pronounced by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, this Court deems it fit to extract the relevant provisions of sub section (3) of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., alongwith its proviso(s):- 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. 1........ 2 ........ 3. If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month'' s allowances remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. 3. 3. Initially, it is to be determined whether within the ambit of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the beneficiary of the order, of interim maintenance, did, within a period of one year from the date it fell due, hence make an application for its enforcement, whereupon, alone the mandate of sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. would beget attraction also hence the orders impugned before this Court would, not, beget any stain of any illegality. However, with the orders sought to be enforced by the respondent herein, through, hers availing the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., being evidently pronounced on 7.7.2014, whereas, within less than one year elapsing therefrom, hers hence concerting for their enforcement, thereupon, the mandate of the first proviso, is, satisfied, rendering the extant application to be maintainable before the learned trial Magistrate. Moreover, ''any orders'' pronounced, within, the domain of sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby, the evident violator of orders of interim maintenance, is, ordered to be committed to civil imprisonment, for a period extending upto one month or until payment, if sooner made, ''for theirs'' hence attaining any aura of legal solemnity, enjoin, the Magistrate concerned, to prior thereto draw subjective satisfaction(s), of, the purported violation(s) being without any sufficient cause, rather, hence, being intentional besides to objectively make discernments (b) vis-a-vis the purported violator patently making open breach(es) of the apposite orders. Needless to say that the signification borne by the statutory coinage embodied in sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., ''issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any part of each month''s allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings, as the case may be remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month of until payment if sooner made'' is none other than of evident intentional breaches by the litigant concerned, of each months'' allowance of maintenance or interim maintenance, thereupon, empowering the Magistrate concerned, to, in respect (s) thereof or in respect of each successive months'' breach(es), hence order for the litigant concerned undergoing detention "upto" one month in civil prison, or thereunder empowerment is bestowed upon him/her to, for each successive breach of each month''s allowance, pronounce an order for committing the violator concerned to one month''s civil imprisonment, conspicuously, for each months'' breach(es). In sequel, in the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for each breach or successive breach(es) by the Petitioner herein, of the order of interim maintenance, upon the entire sums, being equivalently split upto 12 months, hence, attracting its statutory clout vis-a-vis the violator concerned also his ordering for the evident violator being committed to civil prison upto a period of one month, for, each breach(es), does not, prima facie suffer from any apparent illegality, it reiteratedly being within the domain and ambit, of, the signification borne by the aforesaid statutory coinage. 4. Be that as it may, the learned trial Magistrate when proceeding to commit the violator concerned, to civil prison, was also, prior thereto enjoined, to objectively draw satisfaction from the material existing before him, with vivid portrayal(s) therein, of, the violator concerned, not, intentionally breaching the relevant orders also was enjoined to from material(s) existing before him, hence, make discernment(s) therefrom qua the apt breach(es), emanating or not emanating from any sufficient cause besetting the purported violator. In case, the material on record is demonstrative of the violator concerned, holding any sufficient cause, for his not complying with the orders concerted to be enforced, concomitantly, his purported breaches would be rendered bereft of any stains of his intentionally or openly infracting the apposite orders, thereupon, his being ordered to be subjected to civil prison, for realization of amount(s) of interim maintenance, would be ridden with a vice of legal infirmity. 5. For determining, whether the learned Magistrate had delved into the relevant material, for hers/his, therefrom, objectively drawing a conclusion with respect, to, the purported derelicting litigant holding or not holding a sufficient cause, to omit to beget compliance vis-a-vis the apposite orders, it is imperative to make an immediate advertence to the orders pronounced on 14.09.2016. A perusal thereof makes a disclosure, of, despite the Magistrate concerned, proceeding to order for the attachment of the movable or immovable property(ies) of the violator concerned, hers being seized with a report qua his holding no attachable movable or immovable property/assets. In aftermath, the aforesaid apposite report constituted sufficient material, in respect of the violator concerned, not, intentionally making breaches of the apposite orders, concerted to be enforced rather his holding a sufficient cause, for not, meteing compliance therewith, thereupon, when the opening phrase of sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. "if any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order" constitutes the statutory indispensable sine qua non, for thereafter the Magistrate concerned, proceeding to make a valid pronouncement for the violator concerned, suffering civil imprisonment, whereas, with the aforesaid apposite report, unveiled in the orders recorded on 14.09.2016, making echoings in respect of the violator concerned, not, holding any attachable movable or immovable assets, thereupon, he obviously, cannot, be construed to be intentionally violating the apposite orders rather he is to be construed to be possessing a sufficient cause for, not, meteing compliance(s) therewith. In aftermath, the efforts made by the learned trial Magistrate concerned, to realise the amount of interim maintenance, from, the respondent by hers ordering the latter to suffer one month''s civil imprisonment, for his each months'' successive breaches, of, the orders of interim maintenance, thereupon, patently arises from hers'' irrevering the trite statutory indispensable sine qua non embodied in the initial sentence of sub section (3) of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., hence, remaining not satiated, thereupon, her order(s) acquire vitiation(s), given theirs being rendered in a slipshod manner also without application of mind. 6. Consequently, the instant Petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. 7. Be that as it may, even if this Court, has made the aforesaid pronouncement, yet in case any further recalcitrances, surfaces, on the part of the violator concerned vis-a-vis his defraying the amounts of interim maintenance upon the respondent herein, thereupon, it is open for the respondent herein, to, cast an apposite Petition before the Magistrate concerned, for seeking enforcement of the apposite orders, whereupon, the learned Magistrate shall order, that the during the period when the violator concerned, is, ordered to undergo civil imprisonment, the Superintendent Jail concerned, shall, ensure of his thereat being gainfully employed also his by remitting in Court the wages earned by the violator concerned, hence ensuring that the order of interim maintenance begetting compliance. Also prior thereto, the learned Magistrate shall apply his/her mind to the mandate of the apposite second proviso, proviso whereof remained upto now irrevered by her, and, make efforts for the respondent herein rejoining the marital company of the Petitioner herein besides if the Magistrate arrives at a decision that the respondent, despite her husband genuinely offering to retrieve her to his company, holds no sufficient cause, to spurn the conciliatory effort(s) of the Petitioner herein, he shall within the domain of the apposite proviso pass an affirmative order. Conspicuously, when the mandate borne therein enjoins satiation thereof being begotten along with satiation (s) being meted vis-a-vis the prior thereto proviso(s), given its salutary beneficent effects, when put to work, can yet mitigate the hardship besetting the violator arising from his being ordered to be committed to judicial custody. Conspicuously, when the mandate borne therein enjoins satiation thereof being begotten along with satiation (s) being meted vis-a-vis the prior thereto proviso(s), given its salutary beneficent effects, when put to work, can yet mitigate the hardship besetting the violator arising from his being ordered to be committed to judicial custody. In aftermath, the salutary mechanism(s) borne in both the apposite proviso(s) of sub-section 3 of Section 125, of, the Cr.P.C., enjoin peremptory compliance therewith besides all statutory mechanism(s) enshrined therein warrant precursory conjoint workability, for imputing validation to any subsequent order, directing the derelicting litigant, to, undergo civil imprisonment. All pending application(s) also standing disposed of.