Order.- This is a criminal revision against the order of the learned 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras; upholding a preliminary objection raised by the respondent herein and dismissing a petition under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the revision petitioner claiming maintenance from her husband who is the respondent. The revision petitioner has obtained a decree for maintenance against the respondent herein in O.S. No. 135 of 1967 on the file of the /District Munsif’s Court, Vizianagaram. O.S. No. 195 of 1975 was again filed by her in the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Vizianagaram, for enhancement of the maintenance. That suit also was decreed subsequently. Obviously because the revision petitioner was not able to execute the decree of the civil Court against the respondent herein who is residing in the city of Madras and who is employed in the Manali Oil Refineries as a Chemical Engineer, she has filed a petition under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for recovery of the maintenance. 2. A preliminary objection was raised before the learned Magistrate that in view of the decrees of the civil Courts the petition for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable. The learned Magistrate after observing that "there is nothing in section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, that the existence of a civil Court decree would ipso facto bar a proceeding under that section" has held that as the revision petitioner is in a position to realise the amount due under the decree, she cannot get a further and separate order for maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. 3. This order of the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained. The existence of a decree for maintenance passed by a civil Court is not a bar to proceedings under section 125, Criminal Procedure, Code being initiated and an order of maintenance being passed in favour of the petitioner if the facts of the case warrant the grant of maintenance. 3. This order of the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained. The existence of a decree for maintenance passed by a civil Court is not a bar to proceedings under section 125, Criminal Procedure, Code being initiated and an order of maintenance being passed in favour of the petitioner if the facts of the case warrant the grant of maintenance. However, reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the respondent on a decision of Sadasivam, J., reported in Govindaswami Mudaliar v. Muthulakshmi Ammal1 in support of the contention that the question whether a decree of a civil Court would bar an action under section 488 of the old Criminal Procedure Code corresponding to section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (II of 1974) would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But the learned Counsel has failed to read the judgment further wherein the learned Judge has laid down that "if a decree for maintenance passed by a civil Court is unexecutable or unrealisable for some reason or other, as for, instance, where it is held that the defendant has no means to pay or that he has become an insolvent, the only remedy by the maintenance holder is to resort to section 488 of the Code. This view of the learned judge, which I respectfully adopt, is sufficient to deal the fatal blow to the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent. 4. In Linga Goundar v. Raman2 Natarajan, J. has held that "section 125, Criminal Procedure Code does not lay down that the existence of a decree for maintenance passed by a civil Court will bar the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to entertain a petition under section 125 for maintenance." Apart from that, we have a number of decided cases which clearly lay down that the existence of a civil decree for maintenance cannot operate sa a bar to a proceeding, for obtaining maintenance, being instituted under the Criminal Procedure Code. Again the learned Judge has observed that "the manner in which section 489(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 was framed and sub-section (2) of section 127 of the 1973 Code is worded, would clearly show that for the civil Court’s pronouncement to have an impact on the order of maintenance made by a Magistrate it should have been later in point of time".With this view of the learned judge I respectfully agree. 5. In the instant case the status of the revision petitioner as the legally wedded wife of the respondent and her right to claim maintenance from him on the grounds alleged by her in the suit have been upheld by the civil Court. Therefore it is not open to the criminal Court to go into the question whether she is the legally wedded wife and whether she is entitled to maintenance hereafter. As a petition under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not barred by a decree of the civil Court, she is now entitled to file a petition and claim maintenance. The learned Magistrate, however, will have to take note of the decree of the civil Court in determining the quantum of maintenance payable, regard being had to the altered circumstances, if any, since the date of the decree. Therefore the order of dismissal of the petition under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, by the learned Magistrate is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, for transfer of the case to the file of any other Metropolitan Magistrate for enquiry and disposal. The petition shall be taken up and disposed of expeditiously.