Judgment :- This revision is filled by a husband against the order for maintenance obtained by his divorced wife under S. 125 of the Cr.P.C. in M.C. No. 42/81 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode. 2. Prior to the dissolution of marriage, the wife filed another petition for maintenance under S. 125. Revision Petitioner resisted the same on the ground that she is not justified in living separate. He wanted the wife to come and reside with him. Her claim for maintenance was disallowed. Then the revision petitioner moved for restitution of conjugal rights and got a favourable order. Meanwhile, the wife moved for divorce and the marriage was dissolved. After divorce, she filed the present petition for maintenance claiming under explanation (b) to S. 125(1). That was allowed and the revision is against the order. 3. The main point urged by the revision petitioner before me was that a wife who has obtained divorce from her husband will not be entitled to the benefits of S. 125. But this contention cannot stand in view of Explanation (b) to sub-section (1) of S. 125, which reads :- "'Wife' includes a women who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried." 4. Admittedly, the wife has not remarried. The only disqualification now attempted to be put forward against her is that after the order for restitution of conjugal rights she filed a petition and obtained an order for divorce from the husband. Such an argument is not available to the husband in view of the extended definition of 'wife' mentioned above. It is immaterial as to who moved for divorce. The extended definition includes within its ambit a lady, who was divorced by her husband as well as one who obtained a divorce from her husband on her own volition in spite of the opposition from the husband. If so, a divorce by mutual consent must also come within the provision and a wife who joined with the husband in effecting divorce also will come within that definition. In order to put forward a claim for maintenance as a divorced wife, it is immaterial how the divorce came into being. If she has no disability in claiming maintenance under any other provision, her claim must stand. In order to put forward a claim for maintenance as a divorced wife, it is immaterial how the divorce came into being. If she has no disability in claiming maintenance under any other provision, her claim must stand. Except one contention, which I shall deal subsequently, no other ground was taken to disentitle her claim. 5. During subsistence of the marriage both the husband and wife may have rights and corresponding duties. Wife may be bound to discharge marital obligations. She has the duty to keep company with the husband and submit to other marital obligations to which the husband is entitled. She may be justified in keeping away from the husband only for valid and justifiable reasons. If she is not so justified, she may not be entitled to claim separate maintenance. During the subsistence of the marriage, refusal by wife to submit to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights may bar her claim for separate maintenance. But after divorce, whatever be the circumstances of divorce, she has no obligation to discharge the marital duties and none of those grounds will prevail against her claim. In such cases, in the absence of any disqualification available under law she is entitled to get maintenance. The fact that she has filed an earlier application when the marriage was subsisting and suffered a dismissal of the same on grounds available only against a wife whose marriage is subsisting is no reason to dismiss her application in the capacity as a divorced wife. The second application in such cases in a different capacity under a distinct and independent cause of action unconnected with the previous one and it cannot be treated as a second application itself. During the subsistence of the marriage, the husband could get the application of the wife dismissed on grounds more than one which are not available to him after divorce. 6. The argument, that the circumstances which existed when her first petition was dismissed are even now there without any change and hence a second petition without any allegation or proof of changed circumstances will not lie, is devoid of merit. There is the changed circumstance resulting from the divorce which changed the status as well as cause of action. No other change of circumstances is necessary for maintaining a second application. There is the changed circumstance resulting from the divorce which changed the status as well as cause of action. No other change of circumstances is necessary for maintaining a second application. Under the new status of the wife, the husband cannot say that she is not justified in living separate. She has no duty to go and live with him. The extended definition was inserted by way of public policy to avoid vagrancy. 7. If at all authority is required for the above positions, it could be had from the decision in Nanu v. Vasantha, 1984 Ker LT 382 : (1984 Cri LJ 1206) wherein Bhat, J. observed : "Altogether she has filed two applications; but the earlier one was filed when she had the status of the wife and the latter application was filed at a time when she had ceased to be wife and as a divorced wife on the strength of the extended definition of the expression "wife" occurring in Explanation (b) to S. 125(1). Therefore, the present application cannot be treated as a second application at all. There is no incompetency attached to the latter application." There is absolutely no merit in this Crl. R.P. and it is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.