JUDGMENT
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. By this application made under Section 482 Cr.PC, the petitioner, who has been granted maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 2000 per month from the Opposite party, has challenged the order, dated, 5.2.2004, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Agartala, West Tripura, in Misc. Case No. 186 of 2003, disallowing the petitioner’s prayer to direct the S.D.O. (Civil) Sonamura, and/or the Director of Small Savings, Group Insurance, Government of Tripura, as employer of the Opposite party, to deduct the maintenance amount of Rs. 2000 per month from the opposite part’s salary and to remit, by way of bank draft, to the petitioner’s Savings Bank Account No. 01190054280 maintained at the State Bank of India, Agartala Branch.
2. Heard Dr. H.K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the opposite party.
3. There is no dispute before this Court that by an order, dated 5.8.2002, passed in Misc case No. 65 of 2002, the revision petitioner, as wife of the opposite party, has been allowed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 2000 per month from the opposite party. Claiming that the petitioner has been facing difficulty on account of, inter alia, delay in receiving payment of the maintenance allowance from the opposite party, the petitioner sought for a direction as hereinabove aforementioned, but the same was disallowed by the impugned order.
4. The learned Court below has rejected the petitioner’s prayer on the ground that Section 125 Cr.PC does not provide for making payment of maintenance allowance by way of bank draft as has been sought for by the petitioner. While dealing with this aspect of the matter, one has to bear in mind that the provisions of Section 125 Cr.PC are intended to fulfil a social purpose. Their object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation, which he owes to society in respect of his wife and children. By providing a simple, speedy but limited relief Section 125 Cr.PC seeks to ensure that the neglected wife and children are not left beggared and destituted on the scrap heap of society and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence. Thus, Section 125 Cr.PC is not intended to provide for a full and final determination of the status and personal rights of the parties. The jurisdiction conferred by Section 125 Cr.PC on the Magistrate is more in the nature of a preventive rather than a remedial jurisdiction; it is certainly not punitive ( see AIR 1975 SC 83).
5. While considering the nature of the reliefs, which the petitioner had sought for, it needs to be re-called that there is no express provision under Section 125 Cr.PC and/or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, as a whole, empowering the Magistrate to pass any interim order for maintenance pending disposal of the proceeding; yet in the case of Smt. Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat (AIR 1986 SC 194), the Apex Court allowed the interim maintenance. While so allowing the prayer for interim maintenance, the Apex Court observed and held as follows :
“……………. In the absence of any express prohibition, it is appropriate to construe the provisions in Chapter IX as conferring an implied power on the Magistrate to direct the person against whom an application is made under Section 125 of the Code to pay some reasonable ; sum by way of maintenance to the applicant pending final disposal of the application. It is quite common that applications made ; under Section 125 of the Code also take several months for being disposed of finally. In order to enjoy the fruits of the proceedings under Section 125, the applicant should be alive till the date of the final order and that the applicant can do in a large number of cases only if an order for payment of interim maintenance is passed by the Court. Every Court must be deemed to possess by necessary intendment all such powers as are necessary to make its orders effective. This principle is embodied in the maxim ‘ubi aliquid conceditur, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (Where anything is concerned, there is conceded also anything without which the thing itself cannot exist.) (Vide Earl Jowitfs Dictionary of English Law 1959 Edn. p. 1797). Whenever anything is required to be done by the law and it is found impossible to do that thing unless something not authorised in express terms be also done then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Such a construction though it may not always be admissible in the present case however would advance the object of the legislation under consideration. A contrary view is likely to result in grave hardship to the applicant, who may have no means to subsist until the final order is passed.”
6. From the above observations, it becomes clear that every court must be deemed to possess such powers as are necessary to make its order effective. This is the principle, which maxim ‘ubi aliquid conceditur, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (Where anything is conceded, there is conceded also any thing without which the thing itself cannot exist’ conveys).
7. It also follows from the above observations made in Smt. Savitri (supra) that when an act is required to be done by law and it is found impossible to be done without doing something, which is not authorised to be done in express terms by law, shall be deemed to be impliedly available to the court, for, otherwise, the order of the court will not be meaningful and effective. In other words, when a Court grants relief, it must ensure that the relief, which it has granted, does not remain merely on papers and must become meaningful for the parties concerned. It is with this object in view that the prayer of the petitioner for direction to the authorities concerned to deduct maintenance allowance from the salary of the opposite-party ought to have been considered.
8. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already been allowed the maintenance allowance of Rs. 2000 per month, it is the duty of the Court to ensure that the direction, so passed, is effectively carried out. Viewed from this angle, the prayer made by the petitioner for direction, as indicated hereinabove, was not untenable in law and ought to have been allowed.
9. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, the impugned order, dated 5.2.2004, is hereby set aside and the S. D. M. Sonamura, is hereby directed to deduct the maintenance allowance of Rs. 2000 per month from the salary of the opposite party and remit the same, by way of bank draft, to the petitioner’s Savings Bank Account No. ,01190054280 maintained at the State Bank of India, Agartala Branch. The expenses for the bank draft, to be prepared and remitted, shall be deducted by the authority concerned from the amount of the maintenance allowance. This direction shall come into force with effect from 1st of June, 2004.
10. The petition shall accordingly stand disposed of.