IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39027 of 2005 SURENDRA THAKUR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 8. 22.7.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner through this application seeks the quashing of order dated 19.8.2005 passed by Sri Ajay Kumar Sinha, the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Aurangabad dismissing Criminal Revision No.82 of 2004 filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 26.4.2004 passed by Sri Vishwa Vibhuti Gupta, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Aurangabad in Misc. Case No.42 of 2001 directing the petitioner to pay ad interim maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to the opposite party no.2 who happens to be his legally wedded wife under the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The grievance of the petitioner is that the court had mechanically erred in directing for payment of ad interim maintenance and the same affects his rights not to make payment to his wife. Proviso(2) to Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. which has been inserted by Act 50 of 2001 with effect from 24.10.2001 specifically provides “ 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 to his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable , and to pay the - 2 - same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.” Section 125 is the measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and prevent their vagrancy and destitution. It will thus appear that the Section 125 has specifically provided for payment of ad interim maintenance to the wife during the pendency of the proceeding thereunder. The learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be unaware of this fact or this provision of law. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)