Short Note : 1. The learned Magistrate considering the claim made by the wife and the defence put forward by the husband allowed maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 60 per month. Though the husband did not take any specific plea about his discharge from his liability on the ground of payment of dower debt, this question was also considered and it was held that the claim made was still maintainable. A revision application against the said order has been filed both by Mst. Kherunnisa as also by the husband Rehmat Khan. 2. It was urged that the definition of the word 'wife' as given in the explanation to section 125 of the Code could not have retrospective effect in as much as under the provisions of section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 such a divorced wife could not claim maintenance and since in this case the divorce is dated 12-11-70 the provisions of section 125 of the Code would not give the divorced wife any right to claim maintenance after coming into force of the Code. In my opinion, such contention is not all tenable. Held : According to section 125 when a wife includes a woman who inspite of being divorced has not married then for the purpose of this section she has a right to claim maintenance from her husband who has divorced her. The only condition is that this claim would be maintainable so long as the wife does not remarry. Accordingly, in my opinion, the provisions of section 125 as mentioned above did give Mst. Kherunnisa right of maintenance from Rehmat Khan as the fact she has not remarried is not in dispute. 3. In this case it is admitted that Mst. Kherunnisa has obtained a decree in respect of dower debt against the husband. Under the Muslim Law payment of dower debt at the time of divorce is customary. However, from the facts appearing from the record it is clear that the full amount of dower debt has neither been paid to nor received by Mst. Kherunnisa from Rehmat Khan. Rehmat Khan did not contest the suit instituted by the divorced wife for the claim made by her in respect of dower debt. However, from the facts appearing from the record it is clear that the full amount of dower debt has neither been paid to nor received by Mst. Kherunnisa from Rehmat Khan. Rehmat Khan did not contest the suit instituted by the divorced wife for the claim made by her in respect of dower debt. Rehmat Khan, however, contends that he has paid some money for the period of ‘Iddat’ but the decreetal debt in respect of Kherunnisa claim for dower debt has not been fully satisfied. According to the aforesaid provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 127 the order of maintenance can be cancelled only if the amount payable by the husband according to personal law of the custom is paid by the husband and received by the divorced wife. Since it is neither alleged nor proved that the amount of dower debt has been paid the order of maintenance cannot be cancelled. 4. In these circumstances the learned Magistrate was justified in allowing maintenance to the wife as she has not married and has also not received the whole amount of dower debt for which she has obtained a decree also. Accordingly, so far as revision application of Rehmat Khan is concerned it is liable to be dismissed. 5. In her revision application Mst. Kherunnisa has prayed that the amount of Rs. 60 allowed to her is inadequate. It is not in dispute that Rehmat Khan is required to pay separate maintenance to his daughter who is living separately with Mst. Kherunnisa. The total income of the Rehmat Khan is near about Rs. 300 an amount of Rs. 60 has been allowed to Mst. Kherunnisa. Considering the income of the husband the amount of maintenance allowed cannot be said to be inadequate. Apart from what Mst. Kherunnisa may require for her maintenance the means to pay of the husband have also taken into consideration. Revisions dismissed.