Phear, J.:— It does not appear very clear upon the the papers which have come up to us in this reference what precisely was the order that waa made by the Deputy Magistrate on the second occasion. We understand that an order for maintenance under the legislative provisions, which are found in s. 536 of the existing Criminal Procedure Code, was originally made, and that it came before the Deputy Magistrate for the purposes of being enforced. It appears from the Deputy Magistrate's letter of explanation that he called the husband before him to show cause why the order should not be enforced and that the husband thereupon, in his presence, divorced his wife. And we cannot gather from the Deputy Magistrate's statement what coursed took at this stage. He tells us that he considered the divorce so effected by the husband was sufficient to relieve the husband from the Duty of compliance with the order of maintenance. As I have already said, however, the Deputy Magistrate does not state in words what formal order he passed. Now, it is clear I think that, as long as any order duly made under a. 586, or its former equivalent, is existing unaltered by any subsequent proceeding, it is operative, and it would be the duty of the Deputy Magistrate, when called upon by the wife in whose favor the order was made, to enforce it. The following section, 537, provides a mode in which the person against whom the order is made can, upon a change of circumstances, get that order altered. And it seems to me probable that, upon the facts stated by the Deputy Magistrate, when the husband in his presence divorced his wife, such an alteration of circumstances Page: A-35did oocar which would justify the Deputy Magistrate upon the application of the husband in altering the order for maintenance in favor of the wife.
At the same time it Appears to me quite clear that that change of circumstance, even if it were such as to justify the withdrawal of the order of maintenance against the wife altogether, would not relieve the husband from the necessity of obedience to the order during the time which had elapsed up to the date when and until that change of circumstance had occurred; in other words, that the husband was at any rate strictly bound to pay the maintenance money according to the terms of the order up to the date when in the Magistrate's presence he divorced his wife, as the Deputy Magistrate says he did.
With these remarks, which may serve as some guidence to the Deputy Magistrate, we direct that the record be returned to him, in order that he may take the requisite steps in the matter and pass the proper orders.