JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE applicant has moved this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the order of maintenance granted by the Courts below in favour of the non-applicant. ( 2. ) THE facts not in dispute are that the applicant married the non-applicant in the year 1962 but in March 1968 the applicant gave Talak and the maniage was dissolved. Thereafter the applicant remarried one Mst. Samora bi. The non-applicant then filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 138/ (968 claiming maintenance from the applicant but her claim was rejected on 28-7-1969 on the ground that no maintenance can be granted as the marriage has been dissolved. The order was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal revision No. 55/1969 decided on 3-3-1970. The non-applicant then filed civil Suit No. 24-B/1970 claiming Mehar amounting to Rs. 1,100 which she alleged was the amount settled at the time of marriage. The suit was dismissed on 30-1-1974 holding that it was a Khoola Talak and the applicant gave divorce after the non-applicant relinquished her claim of dower against him. The judgment was affirmed in Civil Appeal No. 7-B/71, decided on 30-8-1974 by additional District Judge. The non-applicant has now claimed maintenance under section 125 of the new Code at the rate of Rs. 100 per month stating that the applicant is doing business in rice and he is earning about Rs. 700 per month. The applicant contested the application on several grounds, the main objection seems to be that since there was a Khoola Talak between the parties and the non-applicant had relinquished her claim for Mehar, she is not entitled for any maintenance in view of section 127 (3) (b) of the new Code. The learned trial Magistrate granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 per month and overruled the objections of the applicant. He held that section 127 (3) (b) is not attracted because the applicant never paid the amount of dower but the non-applicant had relinquished her claim for dower. This provision can only be applied for cancellation of the maintenance already granted after the dower is paid. As admittedly no dower was paid, the non-applicant can pursue her claim for maintenance. The learned Sessions Judge in revision affirmed the order of the trial Magistrate. This provision can only be applied for cancellation of the maintenance already granted after the dower is paid. As admittedly no dower was paid, the non-applicant can pursue her claim for maintenance. The learned Sessions Judge in revision affirmed the order of the trial Magistrate. He was of the view that as it was an oral Khoola Talak and as it has not been shown as to what were the terms and conditions under which the Talak was given, it has to be presumed that the non-applicant had relinquished her claim for dower but she is still entitled to maintenance during the period of iddat. ( 3. ) THE non applicant raised a preliminary objection that present application under section 482 cannot be entertained inasmuch as a second revision is barred under section 397 (3) of the new Code and section 482 cannot be invoked to override the express provisions in the Code and by entertaining this application the very purpose of section 397 (3) will be defeated. It is true that a second revision does not lie in view of section 591 (3) and the applicant having preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, a further revision is barred and normally in such circumstances section 482 of the Code should not be invoked in order to override the express bar. However, section 482 of the code provides that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, if it is shown that any patent illegal order has been passed then it will be open to this Court to quash such an order even if no further revision can be entertained by this court. Under section 482 this Court has ample power to rectify ar,y error in order to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. ( 4. ) NOW the question remains whether the non-applicant is debarred from claiming maintenance in view of section 127 (3) (b) because she had relinquished her claim for dower. It is not disputed her that under the new provision of section 125 a divorced wife can now claim maintenance even if the divorce had taken place before the new Code came into force. It is not disputed her that under the new provision of section 125 a divorced wife can now claim maintenance even if the divorce had taken place before the new Code came into force. Section 127 (3) (b) provides that where any order has been made under section 125 in favour of a woman who has been divorced or has obtained divorce from her husband, the Magistrate shall, if he is satisfied that she has received whether before or after the date of said order, the whole of the sum which, under any customary or personal law applicable to the parties, was payable on such divorce, cancel such order. Section 125 has to be read with section 127 and if there has been a divorce and wife has received her dower and other dues then she cannot claim maintenance under section 125. I am fortified in my view by the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in rukhsana Parvin v. Sk. Mohd. Hussein (1977 (l)Cr. LJ 1041.) in which it has been held :-"it is true that there are no words of restriction of a right to claim maintenance to be found in section 125 itself. But sections 125 and 127 (3) must be harmoniously construed, and section 127 (3) (b) must be read as a proviso which will restrict the power of the magistrate in (he matter of entertaining an application for maintenance at the instance of a divorced wife in whose case the provisions of section 127 (3) (b) have been complied with. Thus where a Mohammedan husband has paid to his divorced wife the Mehar and maintenance for the period of iddat an application by the divorced wife under section 125 is not maintainable. " ( 5. ) MULLA on Principles of Mahomedan Law 17th Edition, in section 319 has mentioned that a marriage may be dissolved not only by Talak, which is the arbitrary act of the husband, but also by agreement between the husband and wife. A dissolution of marriage by agreement may take the form of Khula talak and it is at the instance of wife in which she gives or agrees to give a consideration to her husband for her release from the marriage tie. A dissolution of marriage by agreement may take the form of Khula talak and it is at the instance of wife in which she gives or agrees to give a consideration to her husband for her release from the marriage tie. In section 320 it is further mentioned that unless it is otherwise provided by the contract, a divorce effected by Khula Talak operates as release by the wife of her dower, but it does not affect the liability of the husband to maintain her during the period of iddat or to maintain his children by her. In the civil suit filed by the non-applicant, a definite finding has been given that there was a khula Talak between the parties after the non-applicant gave up her claim of dower from the applicant. This finding is binding on both the parties. Section 127 (3) (b) cannot be interpreted too technically. Though no dower has been paid by the applicant but as the non-applicant had relinquished her claim for dower it has to be taken that she has received her dower which was payable to her on her divorce. The Khula Talak was at the instance of non-applicant and she got Talak on relinquishing her claim for dower against the applicant. Now she cannot be permitted to say that she has not received her dower and therefore she is entitled to maintenance. She can only get maintenance for the period of iddat which has passed since long. Under the circumstances, the non-applicant is not entitled to claim any maintenance for herself. It is, therefore, not possible to agree with the views expressed by the Courts below. ( 6. ) THE application is, therefore, allowed, the orders passed by the Courts below are hereby quashed and the application for maintenance by the non-applicant is rejected. Application allowed.