Section 125 CrPC: Magistrate's Discretion or a Mandatory Obligation?

I'm still trying to get my head around how I messed up Contract theory last semester, but coming back stronger means I'm ready to tackle tough topics like this. Now, let's get into it. Section 125 CrPC talks about maintenance, and the courts have been struggling to decide whether it's a discretionary order or a binding obligation. I'm with Justice S.B Majmudar's view - it's mandatory. What do you guys think? The courts can't just ignore a person's basic right to maintenance just because they feel it's too costly. It's a fundamental right, and the magistrate should follow it. But what about cases where the person is already independently wealthy? Shouldn't the court consider that? Let's hear it - do you guys agree with me or think it's discretionary?