JUDGMENT : MARY JOSEPH, J. 1. This Original Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash Ext.P4 order passed by Family Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl. M.P. No. 305/2019 in M.C. No. 132/2019. Crl. M.P. No. 305/2019 was filed by the girl child of the petitioner seeking for monthly allowance for interim maintenance from him. The respondent appeared before the Family Court and submitted that he is an Ex-service man getting Rs. 20,000/- as pension. The Family Court directed the respondent on the basis of that information to pay Rs. 5,000/- as monthly allowance for interim maintenance. Being aggrieved by the above order, this Original Petition (Criminal) is filed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted on the basis of the certificate of birth of the girl child produced alongwith the petition on hand that she has become major on 19.07.2021. Accordingly, it was contended that her entitlement to get monthly allowance for interim maintenance is only up to the month of the year in which she attained the age of majority. According to the learned counsel, though the Family Court was apprised of that aspect, it was not considered and thereby the impugned order was passed. 3. The copy of the objection filed before the Family Court in the M.C. is produced. It bears the date on which the impugned order was passed. Though objection is not separately filed in Crl. M.P. No. 305/2019, it being filed in the M.C. and available to the Family Court while proceeding to pass an order granting monthly allowance for interim maintenance, it shall take those into account. If any reliable documentary evidence is already made available for consideration of the Family Court, those must also be dealt with, in the order passed. 4. This Court had occasion to see from several instances of challenges raised against orders granting monthly allowance for interim maintenance that, orders have been passed without considering relevant materials though made available to it by the parties, sufficiently earlier. First and second proviso to Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. reads: “Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means. First and second proviso to Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. reads: “Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means. Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.” Therefore, the Magistrate may order the respondent, during the pendency of the proceedings seeking for monthly maintenance allowance, to pay some amount towards monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or child, father or mother, together with the expenses of such proceedings, as he/she considers reasonable and to such person, as he/she may directs from time to time. 5. The following are the categories of people entitled to claim monthly maintenance allowance under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. (1) wife unable to maintain herself. (2) legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself. (3) legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself. (4) father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself. 6. As contemplated under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. the person responsible must be established by the claimant for monthly maintenance allowance, as having sufficient means and that he/she was neglected or refused to be maintained by him. It is incumbent upon the respondent under the above provision to establish the ability of the above four categories of people to maintain himself/herself. Only when it is found by the court affirmatively that an order for monthly maintenance allowance will be passed and a direction be issued to the person who is responsible for payment. 7. It is incumbent upon the respondent under the above provision to establish the ability of the above four categories of people to maintain himself/herself. Only when it is found by the court affirmatively that an order for monthly maintenance allowance will be passed and a direction be issued to the person who is responsible for payment. 7. 2nd proviso to Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C. secures the right of the above categories of people to get monthly allowance for interim maintenance pending consideration of the M.C. It also refers that the monthly allowance for interim maintenance and the cost of the proceedings which a court is empowered to grant must be a sum, which it considers reasonable. Therefore, undoubtedly, the fixation of the sum is totally within the discretion of the Court, but it must be in consideration of materials made available by the parties and cannot be arbitrary. 8. 3rd proviso to Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. provides that an application for monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice of the application to such person. 9. As per the 2nd proviso, it is not incumbent upon a court to grant monthly allowance for interim maintenance or interim monthly maintenance allowance in all claims for monthly maintenance allowance raised before it. It is further clarified under the above proviso that the Magistrate is obliged to grant maintenance allowance for interim maintenance only when it was applied for by the four categories, coming under Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C. referred to above. 10. Therefore, a court is not bound to pass orders for monthly allowance for interim maintenance in all pending petitions seeking monthly maintenance allowance. But, a court shall pass orders granting monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of the four categories, on application being preferred before it by any of them. When applications are filed for the purpose, it has no other options than to pass an order fixing the sum that appears reasonable to it. True that discretion is conferred on the Magistrate, in the matter of fixation of monthly allowance for interim maintenance. When applications are filed for the purpose, it has no other options than to pass an order fixing the sum that appears reasonable to it. True that discretion is conferred on the Magistrate, in the matter of fixation of monthly allowance for interim maintenance. But in the pursuit to fix the sum payable as monthly allowance for interim maintenance, the exercise of discretion of the Magistrate must not be felt by the parties before it as an exercise in an arbitrary manner. Justice must not only be done but seems to have been done. 11. The 3rd proviso fixes a time limit of sixty days from the date of service of notice of the application on the person liable to pay monthly allowance for interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings. But 3rd proviso does not say that the Magistrate or the court as the case may be, shall dispose of the application for monthly allowance for interim maintenance within sixty days. The words “as far as possible” incorporated in the 3rd proviso confers a further discretion on the court in the matter of passing of orders under the 2nd proviso to Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. But, while availing time for disposal of an application filed under the 2nd proviso, beyond 60 days prescribed for doing so under the third proviso, the court must have to state some cogent reasons to justify such a late exercise. If any reasons fettering exercise of power by the court are not there, it must have to see that orders for monthly allowance for interim maintenance are passed within the maximum period of sixty days as provided under the 3rd proviso. 12. Regarding fixation of the sum payable as monthly allowance for interim maintenance, 2nd proviso speaks about fixation of a sum which the court considers reasonable. (Emphasis supplied) 13. In the pursuit to fix a reasonable sum, the court ought not to have omitted consideration of contentions already stands raised by the respondent before it by way of objection filed either in the maintenance case or in the miscellaneous petition filed in the M.C. seeking for monthly allowance for interim maintenance. Indepth consideration of all contentions is not necessary. In the pursuit to fix a reasonable sum, the court ought not to have omitted consideration of contentions already stands raised by the respondent before it by way of objection filed either in the maintenance case or in the miscellaneous petition filed in the M.C. seeking for monthly allowance for interim maintenance. Indepth consideration of all contentions is not necessary. Prima facie satisfaction, the court derives from a consideration of the material contentions in the objection relating to the financial capacity and assets of the respondent and the petitioner before it, their liabilities and the factors if any, restricting the period of entitlement of the petitioner before it to receive the monthly allowance, are important. The court must attempt to be convinced prima facie of the above aspects when it proceeds to fix the sum payable as monthly allowance for interim maintenance. If any cogent materials on the above aspects are made available by a party, that must also form basis for fixation of the monthly allowance for interim maintenance. 14. The specific case of the petitioner in the case on hand was that though he has raised a contention in the objection filed in the M.C. that the entitlement of the child to get monthly allowance for interim maintenance is only upto 19.07.2021 on account of her attainment of age of majority on that date and has also produced an authentic document certifying her date of birth, the Family Court failed to take note of that and referred to in the impugned order. Accordingly, he was forced to approach this Court with the petition on hand seeking for modification of the interim order by taking that aspect also into consideration. The impugned order reads: “Respondent present. He reported that he is an ex-serviceman and getting Rs. 20,000/- as pension. He would admit that his daughter is studying in Plus II. Hence the respondent is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to his daughter as interim maintenance from this month onwards.” 15. It is noticed from the extract above that the Family Court failed to consider a material contention raised by the respondent in the objection filed on 25.11.2021 in the M.C. regarding the entitlement of the minor child to get maintenance allowance only till 19.07.2021. Certified copy of the objection allegedly filed before the Family Court is not produced. Only a photocopy is made available. Certified copy of the objection allegedly filed before the Family Court is not produced. Only a photocopy is made available. Therefore, this Court cannot take a view regarding availability of the objection before the Family Court while Crl. M.P. was taken for passing of the impugned order. It is asserted by the counsel for the petitioner that the alleged objection was available for the Family Court for consideration while passing the impugned order. The impugned order extracted above is a cryptic one, without any description about the basis for arriving it. The challenge in the case being the non-reference by the Family court in the impugned order about the date of attainment of the age of majority by the child and her non-entitlement for monthly allowance thereafter. 16. Ext.P4 does not contain the manner in which the discretion to fix the monthly allowance for interim maintenance was exercised by the court. A proper say of the court on that aspect require application of mind to the material aspects raised in the objection filed by the respondent and also reliable and admissible materials, if any, made available to the court by the parties. The impugned order being one passed by Family Court, Pathanamthitta without application of mind to any of the pleadings available to it then and without being specific about the date upto which the child has entitlement for Rs.5,000/- stands ordered as monthly allowance for interim maintenance. 17. In the result, O.P. (Crl.) is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Crl. M.P. No. 305/2019 is remitted for reconsideration of Family Court, Pathanamthitta in the light of the pleadings and documentary evidence if any available to substantiate that the child has attained the age of majority on the alleged date and on being convinced of that, to pass an order restricting the entitlement of the child to receive the monthly allowance for interim maintenance till that date, by way of modification of the impugned order. The Family Court shall pass a well considered and reasoned order in the Crl. M.P. within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt by it of a certified copy of this order. 18. Nowadays challenges are often raised against orders of Family Courts for the reason of its’ cryptic and non-speaking nature. Therefore, Registry shall communicate this order to all Family Courts within the State to avoid such instances in future. M.P. within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt by it of a certified copy of this order. 18. Nowadays challenges are often raised against orders of Family Courts for the reason of its’ cryptic and non-speaking nature. Therefore, Registry shall communicate this order to all Family Courts within the State to avoid such instances in future. Whatever be the nature of the order, to have transparency, the basis for arriving at must find a place in the order itself.