M. B. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) IN my view both the courts have rightly negatived the contention of the husband that wife was serving and getting some amount per month therefore recovery application under sec. 125 (3) for arrears of maintained was not maintainable. In the recovery application husband cannot submit that he failed to comply with the order of maintenance because wife was serving somewhere and getting some amount per month. Sec. 125 (3) provides that if any person so ordered to pay maintenance fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order then the Magistrate can pass an appropriate order as provided therein. Husband has not filed may application for altering or setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate granting maintenance to the wife. It is not open to the husband to adjudicate by himself and state that as the wife was earning something he was not bound to comply with the order passed may the Magistrate. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is set aside or varied under sec. 127 of the Code it is not open to him contend that be has not paid the amount on the alleged ground that the wife was earning. ( 2 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of BHUPINDER SINGH V. DALJIT KAUR A. I. R. 1979 SUPREME COURT 442 negativing such contention has held as under :"we are concerned with a Code which is complete on the topic and any defence against an order passed under Sec. 125. Cr. P. C. must be founded on a provision in the Code. Sec. 125 is a provision to protect the weaker of the two parties namely. the neglected wife. If an order for maintenance has been made against the deserter it will operate until vacated or altered he terms of the provisions of the Code itself. If the husband has a case under Sec. 123 (4) (5) or Sec. 127 of the Code it is open to him to initiate appropriate proceedings. But until the original order for maintenance is modified or cancelled by a higher court or is varied or vacated in terms of Sec. 125 (4) or (5) or Sec. 127 its validity survives. It is enforceable and no plea that there has been cohabitation in the interregnum or that there has been a compromise between the parties can hold good as a valid defence". It is enforceable and no plea that there has been cohabitation in the interregnum or that there has been a compromise between the parties can hold good as a valid defence". ( 3 ) IN the result the Special Criminal Application is rejected. Rule Discharged. Application rejected. .