N. N. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 289. 1982 by Sri N. S. Shamshery, learned III Addi. Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Criminal Revision No. 134 of 1982. The revision was allowed and the order of the learned Magistrate dated 7. 4. 1982 was set aside with the result that application of revisionist for maintenance allowance stood dismissed. ( 2 ) FACTS given below are admitted to the parties. The revisionist married Basant Lal, opposite party no. 1 in 1949; the daughter who was the first issue of this union expired and one son Om Prakash who is major now is alive. The revisionist filed an application for maintenance on 18. 7. 1978. The maintenance was claimed from 3. 2. 1970 for herself and her adult son Om Prakash at the rate of Rs. 500/-per month. It was alleged that relations amongst the parties got strained from 1959. On account of maltreatment the revisionist had to leave house of opposite party No. 1, she had to reside with her maternal grand father in Varanasi City. Husband neglected to maintain her and her son Om Prakash. In 1959 she filed a suit for judicial separation which was dismissed by the learned trial court and that order was up-held by the appellate court. In 1. 962 opposite party No. 1 filed a suit against the revisionist for restitution of conjugal rights which was decreed in 1965. The revisionist went up in appeal against that decree which failed on 3-2-1972. ( 3 ) AFTER giving a notice to revisionist, opposite party No. 1 filed a suit for divorce; eventually opposite party obtained a decree for divorce on 3-2-1970 from the court of District Judge, Varanasi in suit No. 13 of 1969. ( 4 ) OPPOSITE party No. 1 controverter same allegations made by revisionist in her application for maintenance. He denied to have neglected his wife Om Prakash. He further maintained that his wife desired to live in Varanasi as she did not like her stay in the village with opposite party no. 1 despite his efforts to procure her company. ( 5 ) PARTIES adduced oral and documentary evidence in the court of Magistrate who found that the revisionist is the divorce of opposite party No 1; he further found that Smt. Shanti Devi had a monthly income Rs. 1 despite his efforts to procure her company. ( 5 ) PARTIES adduced oral and documentary evidence in the court of Magistrate who found that the revisionist is the divorce of opposite party No 1; he further found that Smt. Shanti Devi had a monthly income Rs. 80/- which was the amount of rent she was getting from a house. This amount was insufficient for her maintenance; the income of opposite party No. 1 was sufficient to justify the award of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to revisionist. It was further found that Om Prakash was major now and so opposite party No. 1 was not bound to maintain him. In the result claim of the revisionist for maintenance was allowed from 18-7-1978 at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. ( 6 ) IN revision No. 134 of 1982 preferred by Basant Lal the learned Judge held that revisionist without sufficient reason was living separate from her husband since 1959. Her allegations about the cruelty of the husband were not made out; so the only of learned Magistrate awarding maintenance was illegal. In the result impugned order was drawn. I have heard Sri N. L. Ganguli, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Manoj Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1. None appeared on behalf of State of U. O, to oppose this revision. ( 7 ) ON behalf of the revisionist it was argued that findings of fact recorded by learned Magistrate should not have been disturbed in revision by learned Judge. It had been found that revisionist was neglected by opposite party no. 1 it was further found that revisionist had not sufficient means to maintain herself, it had been further found that opposite party no 1 was in affluent circumstances and could easily provide the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to revisionist. It had been further found that the revisionist who is a divorsee and who was entitled to maintenance in view of Explanation (b) appended to Section 125, sub-clause (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not living in adultery nor she had remarried nor there was any agreement under which parties were living separately by mutual consent and so the learned Judge erred in reversing the order recorded by learned trial Magistrate. ( 8 ) SRI Manoj Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party no. I invited my attention to clause (4) appended to Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, which runs as below:no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this Section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refused to live with her husband, or if they are having separately by mutual consent. He pointed out that there was not sufficient reason on the part of the revisionist to live separately from her husband. In cross examination Smt. Shanti Devi conceded that she had not gone to the house of Basant Lal for the last 22 years prior to her deposition. Basant Lal used to visit her place during this period. Under such circumstances stances it was obvious that learned Magistrate erred in holding that husband neglected to maintain the lady and so there was nothing wrong in the conduct of the revisionist in living Separate from her husband. ( 9 ) IN this connection he relied upon an unpublished decision of this Court dated 8-9-1981 in Gopal Prasad v. Ratan Mala. A perusal of the facts of that case goes to show that the case was remanded to Magistrate to consider the effect of decree in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights on the wifes claim for maintenance. However, in that case wife was not a divorcee during the period for which she had claimed the maintenance: Hi. Sri Mano; Prasad further relied upon Mohd. Siddiq v. Mr. Zubeda Khaloon2 which lays down: It is true that the Magistrate has a discretion under the section to pass an order for maintenance but that discretion must be exercised upon judicial principles and it is not in accordance with sound judicial principles to compel a husband to maintain a wife who contumaciously refuses to obey the order of a civil Court directing her to live with her husband. The decision in a suit against the wife for restitution of conjugal rights is equivalent to decision by a competent civil court that the wife had no sufficient reason for refusing to live with her husband and the criminal court cannot enquire into any allegations of failure or neglect to maintain prior to such decision. A. I. R. (36), 1949 Cal. 87, Foil, A. I. R. (11) 1924, All. A. I. R. (36), 1949 Cal. 87, Foil, A. I. R. (11) 1924, All. 784, Disting (Para 6 ). Where subsequent to the decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife, the wife had filed two suits against the husband for dowry and she refused to obey the decree because there was an apprehension in her mind that she might be got to withdraw those suits if she went to live with her husband. Held that this was not sufficient ground for her to refuse to live with her husband because, while she might be entitled to the rights which she claimed under the suits, her husband was also entitled to have a privilege to her company and she was bound to go and live with him. (para 7 ). ( 10 ) NEXT reliance was placed upon Dhani Ram v. Parwari and another3, which lays down:on the passing of a decree for judicial separation under Section 1o (1) (a): Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the desertion on the part of the wife lasted for more than two years, maintenance ordered under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code for her ought to be cancelled on the application of the husband under Section 127, Criminal Procedure Code. The maintenance in this case was cancelled from on the date of the husbandts application under Section 127. The judgment of the Civil Court under the Hindu Marriage Act being a judgment in rem was binding on the Magistrate acting under Chapter IX of Criminal Procedure Code. The maintenance in this case was cancelled from on the date of the husbandts application under Section 127. The judgment of the Civil Court under the Hindu Marriage Act being a judgment in rem was binding on the Magistrate acting under Chapter IX of Criminal Procedure Code. ( 11 ) A careful perusal of the said authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite party shall go to disclose that all these authorities except Dhani Ram v. Parwati and another (supra) which laid down that decree for restitution of conjugal rights was a complete answer to the proceedings initiated by a wife for recovery of maintenance were prior to the introduction of Explanation (b) appended to Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code (Act No. 2 of 1974) which reads as below: Explanation:- For the purposes of this Chapter, (a) (b) wife includes woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried,t ( 12 ) DHANI Ram v. Parwati and another, (supra) was overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Prakash Chandra v. Smt. Prakashwati4, where it was held:- A wife who has applied for maintenance under Section 125 is not disentitled to maintenance if she has not remarried merely on account of the fact that the husband had obtained a decree for divorce or a decree for judicial separation on the ground of desertion. (para 5 ). Under Section 125 (1) (a) a person having sufficient means is under an obligation to maintain not only his wife but also his divorced wife who has not remarried. The ground on which the decree for divorce was obtained is immaterial. Thus even though the decree for divorce was obtained by the husband on the ground of desertion of the wife he is required to maintain the divorced wife under Section 12-5 (1) (a ). Similarly, the finding of desertion by the wife in granting a decree for judicial separation is of no consequence in proceedings under Section 125 initiated after the decree for judicial separation is granted as the decree itself is sufficient reason for the wife not to live with her husband after it is passed 20. I have to respectfully follow the aforesaid observations. I have to respectfully follow the aforesaid observations. ( 13 ) IN Prakash Chandra Verma v. Smt. Prakashwati (supra) Section 125, sub-clause (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code relied upon by learned advocate for the revisionist was explained in the following terms: It is significant to note that the words used in Section 125 (4) of the code are without any sufficient reason, she refused to live with her husband and not without sufficient reason has refused to live with her husband. It is obvious that after the decree for judicial separation has been passed there is sufficient reason for the wife to refuse to live with the husband although before the said decree is passed there may not have been sufficient reason for her to refuse to live with her husband if she deserted him. The decree for judicial separation itself is a sufficient cause for the wife not to live with her husband. If the husband is not maintaining his wife after judicial separation he is obviously either neglecting her or refusing to do so. The finding of desertion by the wife in granting a decree for judicial separation is, therefore, of no consequence in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code initiated after the decree for judicial separation is granted as the decree itself is sufficient reason for the wife not to live with her husband after it is passed. We are, therefore, not in agreement with the view of brother Deoki Nandan, J. that the learned Magistrate was bound to give effect to the finding of the District Court that the wife was guilty of desertion and that if that is so it cannot be said that the husband had neglected to maintain his wife. In our opinion, therefore, a wife who has applied for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code is not disentitled to maintenance if she has not remarried on account of the fact that the husband had obtained a decree for divorce or a decree for judicial separation on the ground of desertion. ( 14 ) IN Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothis and another5. ( 14 ) IN Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothis and another5. the effect of Explanation (b) to Section 125 (1) of the Code was considered and it was held that it was clear that every divorced wife, otherwise eligible, is entitled to the benefit of maintenance allowance and the dissolution of the marriage makes no difference to this right under the current CODE. ( 15 ) IN Syed Mukhfar Ahmad v. Smt. Moonia Fatma and another6. it was observed: Once, the husband divorces the wife or the wife obtains a divorce from her husband she becomes entitled to claim maintenance from her ex-husband provided she is unable to maintain herself and the husband has neglected to maintain her. Her right to claim maintenance would come to an end only if she remarries or Eves in adultery or if she voluntary surrenders her right to maintenance. In the instant case none of these eventualities has one to pass. Moreover opposite party has contracted a marriage with another woman and so in view of the Explanation appended to Section 125, sub-clause (3) it shall also be considered as a just ground for refusal by the revisionist to live with him. ( 16 ) SRI Manoj Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 further relied upon Bishambhar Dass v. Smt. Angun and another7 Which lays down: In the present case, opposite party No. 1 has not mentioned in her petition that she is unable to maintain herself. In her statement also she did not say so. All that she said was that she was maintaining herself with some difficulty. This is not tantamount to her being unable to maintain herself. Thus his contention was that revisionist could keep herself with a sum of Rs. 80/-which she was earning as rent from her house and so her demand for other sum of Rs. 200/-per month was unjustified. ( 17 ) BISHAMBHAR Dass v. Smt. Angud and another (supra), is distinguishable inasmuch as in the present case revisionist has made a definite averment about her inability to maintain herself and her on. Learned trial Magistrate found that the husband was a man of means and so having regard to the social and economic status of the husband he awarded a sum of Rs. 200/- as maintenance on revisionist. Learned trial Magistrate found that the husband was a man of means and so having regard to the social and economic status of the husband he awarded a sum of Rs. 200/- as maintenance on revisionist. This finding of learned trial magistrate could be shown to be incorrect and is sustainable on the evidence on record. The paltry sum of Rs. 80/- is too meagre in this case to provide an efficacious relief to the revisionist. ( 18 ) IT was observed: ill Abdul Salim v. Smt. Najima Begum. 8 That under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, an important ingredient is that the wife if found unable to maintain herself will be entitled to claim maintenance. However, by the phrase wife was unable to maintain herself it is not meant that she should be absolute destitute and should first be on the street, should beg and be in tattered clothes and then only she will be entitled to move an application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, which too may take some time and that time may be enough for her death. What is necessary is that she herself should be in a position to maintain herself and that it should not be much below the status which she was used to be at the place of her husband 30. In this view of the matter the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the order of learned trial Magistrate is restored. .