Order.- The 1st petitioner in this criminal revision is the mother. The 2nd petitioner is her daughter. The 1st respondent is the husband of the 1st petitioner and the father of the 2nd petitioner. Both the petitioners filed M.C. No. 11 of 1974 in the Court of the Third City Magistrate, Hyderabad under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance. The Court directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 100 per mensem to the 1st petitioner and Rs. 50 per mensem to the second petitioner towards their maintenance. That order has become final. 2. The petitioner filed M.P. No. 360 of 1974 for realising a sum of Rs. 1,150 towards the arrears of maintenance from July, 1973 till 20th February, 1974. They also filed M.P. No. 273 of 1975 for recovering Rs. 1133.34 for the maintenance due to the 1st petitioner and for Rs. 566.66 due to the 2nd petitioner for the period from 21st February, 1974 to 31st January, 1975. 3. Both the petitions were resisted by the respondent. He did not deny his liability to maintain the 2nd petitioner. It was conceded by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in the Lower Court that the amount due to the 2nd petitioner in the two petitions was already paid. The respondent resisted the claim of the 1st petitioner for arrears of maintenance on the ground that he had divorced her on 4th July, 1973 and had communicated the divorce to her by sending a lawyer’s notice by registered post which was served upon the 1st petitioner on 9th July, 1973. It was, therefore, contended that since the relationship of the husband and wife was no longer subsisting, the respondent was not bound to maintain the 1st petitioner. 4. The learned Magistrate, on a consideration of the evidence on record, had found that the respondent had served a notice on the 1st petitioner divorcing her and that notice was served upon the 1st petitioner on 9th July, 1973. Thus there was a divorce between the parties on 9th July, 1973. He held that since the relationship of husband and wife did not exist from that date, the 1st petitioner was entitled for maintenance only for Iddat period of three months and ten days, that is, from 9th July, 1973 till 19th October, 1973. Thus there was a divorce between the parties on 9th July, 1973. He held that since the relationship of husband and wife did not exist from that date, the 1st petitioner was entitled for maintenance only for Iddat period of three months and ten days, that is, from 9th July, 1973 till 19th October, 1973. Consequently he allowed M.P. No. 360 of 1974 partially and granted maintenance in a sum of Rs. 363 for the period of three months and ten days. The respondent was granted ten days time to pay that amount to the petitioners. M.P. No. 273 of 1975 filed for subsequent period was dismissed. 5. Questioning, the said orders, the petitioners have filed this revision. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, ‘wife’ includes a divorced wife, that the 1st petitioner had not re-married, that the respondent had not paid the sum due to the 1st petitioner under the Muslim Law applicable to the parties, that there was no revocation of the order of maintenance by the Magistrate and, therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate is wrong. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that from 9th July, 1973 there was a divorce between the 1st petitioner and the respondent, that from that date the 1st petitioner had ceased to be the wife of the respondent, that under the Criminal Procedure Code, then in force she was not entitled for maintenance from that date as a divorced wife and if at all her right to claim maintenance as a divorced wife, came into existence only on 1st April, 1974 when the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came into force and her remedy is to file a fresh application under the new code. 7. Under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a ‘wife’ includes a woman who had been divorced by, or had obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not re-married. Thus, a divorced wife who has not re-married is entitled for maintenance under the new Code. 7. Under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a ‘wife’ includes a woman who had been divorced by, or had obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not re-married. Thus, a divorced wife who has not re-married is entitled for maintenance under the new Code. Under section 127 (3), if an order for maintenance is made in favour of a woman who had been divorced by or had obtained a divorce from her husband, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the woman, after the date of such divorce, re-married he shall cancel the order of maintenance from the date of her remarriage. If the woman had been divorced by her husband and she has received, whether before or after the date of the said order, the whole of the sum which under the customary or personal law applicable to the parties was payable on such divorce, the Magistrate shall also cancel such order of maintenance in the case where such sum was paid before such order from the date on which such order was made and in any other case from the date of the expiry of the period, if any, for which maintenance was actually paid by the husband to the woman. He can also cancel the order of maintenance if the woman who had obtained a divorce by her husband had voluntarily surrendered her right to maintenance after her divorce. 8. If the provisions of section 125 are applicable to the 1st petitioner, then, evidently she is entitled for maintenance, even though she had been divorced by the respondent, for she had not re-married till to-date. Since the respondent has not, in fact, paid the amount due to the 1st petitioner under her personal law as a result of the divorce, the question of the Magistrate cancelling the order of maintenance under sub-section (3) of section 127 does not arise. 9. The learned Counsel for the respondent also admits that the 1st petitioner is entitled for maintenance under section 125 of the Code after 1st April, 1974. 9. The learned Counsel for the respondent also admits that the 1st petitioner is entitled for maintenance under section 125 of the Code after 1st April, 1974. But what is contended before me is that on 9th July, 1973, when there was a divorce between the 1st petitioner and the respondent, the 1st petitioner ceased to be the wife of the respondent from that date, that she was not entitled to maintenance under section 488 of the old Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, from that date until 1st April, 1974 she cannot claim maintenance. It is further submitted that if it is to be held that she is entitled to maintenance for that period, then it would be giving retrospective effect to the provisions of the new Code of Criminal Procedure. I am not able to agree with this submission. The 1st petitioner has filed these two interlocutory applications for recovery of maintenance from July, 1973 till 20th February, 1974 and from 21st February, 1974 till 31st January, 1975. Those two petitions were pending on the date when the new Criminal Procedure, Code came into force. It is true that the 1st petitioner was divorced on 9th July, 1973. Still the question is whether the 1st petitioner could not take advantage of the provisions of section 125 and claim maintenance even for the period from 9th July, 1973 till 1st April, 1974. I am of the opinion that she can. There is no question of giving retrospective operation to the provisions of the new Code of Criminal Procedure. During the pendency of her two petitions the new Code of Criminal Procedure came into force which defines a wife as including a wife who had been divorced by her husband but who had not re-married. That section does not say that she should have been divorced after the new Code came into force. It also takes in a wife who had been divorced before the new Code, came into operation. Similarly, section 125 does not say that a divorced wife is entitled to maintenance only from 1st April, 1974. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the 1st petitioner can claim maintenance by virtue of the provisions of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 even from 9th July, 1973. 10. Similarly, section 125 does not say that a divorced wife is entitled to maintenance only from 1st April, 1974. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the 1st petitioner can claim maintenance by virtue of the provisions of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 even from 9th July, 1973. 10. Evidently, the learned Magistrate has missed the significance of the provisions of section 125 of the new Code. Consequently, I hold that the 1st petitioner is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 per mensem from July, 1973 till 31st January, 1975. It is ordered accordingly. The order of the learned Magistrate is set aside and this revision is allowed. In the circumstances of the case I direct each party to bear his costs.