JUDGMENT D. N. Mehta, J.-The Petitioner Smt. Shantabai Saitwal in this Criminal Revision Application has impugned the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, dated 23.9.1981. By the said Judgment and Order the learned Sessions Judge had allowed the Revision Petition filed by Respondent No. I herein and had set aside the Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baver dated 10.3.1981. 2. Briefly stated, the facts which have given rise to this Criminal Revision Application are the following: The Petitioner-wife and Respondent No.1 husband were married about 35 years ago. Thereafter the Petitioner-wife and Respondent No. 1-husband separated. Though the date of the separation is not on record. In September 1978 the Petitioner-wife filed an Application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for maintenance from her husband, Respondent No. I, in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baver. By his Judgment and Order dated 16.9.78, the learned Judicial Magistrate, was pleased to grant the Petitioner-wife a sum of Rs. 200/- per month as maintenance. Respondent No. 1-husband, being aggrieved by the said Order of maintenance passed against him, filed a Revision Application, being Criminal Revision Application No. 116 of 1975, in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his Judgment and Order dated 31.7.1979 dismissed the Revision Application filed by the husband. 3. Sometime in the year 1977 Respondent No. 1-husband filed a Petition for divorce against the Petitioner-wife in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Indore being Marriage Petition No. 43 of 1977. The grounds on which the Decree for divorce was sought were adultery and desertion. The learned Additional District Judge, Indore, was pleased to dismiss the Petition for divorce by his Judgment and Order dated 9.12.1978. 4. Respondent No. 1-husband, being aggrieved by the said Order of dismissal of his Petition, filed an Appeal in the High Court at Madhya Pradesh at Indore, being First Appeal No. 12 of 1979. By its Judgment and Order dated 31.11.1979, the High Court was pleased to allow the Appeal of the husband and pass a Decree for divorce on the ground of desertion. 5. By its Judgment and Order dated 31.11.1979, the High Court was pleased to allow the Appeal of the husband and pass a Decree for divorce on the ground of desertion. 5. Respondent No. 1-husband thereafter on 18.7.1980 filed an Application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baver, praying that the Order for maintenance passed against him and in favour of the wife be cancelled in view of the changed circumstances. The learned Judicial Magistrate by his Judgment and Order dated 19.3.1981 was pleased to reject the Application made by Respondent No. 1-husband. 6. Respondent No. l-husband thereafter filed a Criminal Revision Application, being Criminal Revision Application No. 58 of 1981 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. The learned Sessions Judge by his Judgment and Order dated 23.9.1981 allowed the Revision Application filed by the husband and ordered that the Order of maintenance in favour of the wife stood cancelled as and from 8 7.1980. 7. The Petitioner-wife has now approached this Court in Revision impugning the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. 8. Shri Choudhary, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner-wife, has made two submissions in this Revision Application. Shri Choudhary, firstly contended that the proceedings initiated by Respondent No husband for cancellation of the earlier order of maintenance were entirely separate proceedings under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Sessions Judge had erred in coming to the conclusion that the Decree for divorce passed in favour of the husband, disentitled the Petitioner-wife from receiving the maintenance under the earlier order. Shri Choudhary pointed out that under the Explanation to the Proviso to section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a wife was defined as a “woman woo had been divorced or had obtained a divorce from her husband and had not remarried”. Therefore, according to Shri Choudhary, the mere fact that the Petitioner wife had been divorced by Respondent No. 1 husband did not tentamount to any change of status or circumstances and the learned Sessions Judge had wrongly interfered with the order of maintenance. 9. Secondly, Shri Choudhary submitted that the proceedings under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being fresh proceedings, it was incumbent upon Respondent No. 1-husband to prove by independent evidence that the wife had (refused to live with him without sufficient reason. 9. Secondly, Shri Choudhary submitted that the proceedings under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being fresh proceedings, it was incumbent upon Respondent No. 1-husband to prove by independent evidence that the wife had (refused to live with him without sufficient reason. Respondent No. 1-husband not having proved the essential ingredients of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner-wife was entitled to continue to receive the maintenance under the original Order. 10. Shri Kapse, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 husband, submitted that after the husband had obtained a Decree for divorce from a competent Civil Court, the status of the parties had changed radically and the husband was entitled to file an application under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Sessions Judge had come to a correct conclusion that the Decree of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for divorce on the ground of desertion proved that the wife had deserted the husband without sufficient cause and without his consent and against his wish. Shri Kapse submitted that the Decree for divorce passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court was a Decree passed by a competent Civil Court and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was right in setting aside the order for maintenance passed in. favour of the wife. 11. Before I deal with the submissions made by the learned Advocate canvassed at the Bar, it will be pertinent to set out the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section] 25(1) provides: "125(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain: (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole..." 12. Sub-section (4) of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in the following terms: "(4) 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 refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent." 13. Section 127 provides for alteration in the order on proof of changed circumstances. Section 127(1) and (2) provide: "127. (1) On proof of a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving, under section 125 a monthly allowance, or ordered under the same section to pay a monthly allowance to his wife, child, father or mother, as the case may be, the Magistrate may make such alteration in the allowance as he thinks fit: Provided that if he increases the allowance, the monthly rate of five hundred rupees in the whole shall not be exceeded. (2) Where it appears to Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be, vary the same accordingly." 14. Relying on the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Shri Kapse submitted that the Decree of divorce on the ground of desertion passed in favour of the husband by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was a Decree passed by the competent Civil Court. Further that the Decree for divorce on the ground of desertion showed that the wife had abandoned the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and without the consent of the husband and against his wish. If that fact is proved before the Court which had passed the order of maintenance, then the learned Magistrate or the learned Sessions Judge was empowered to set aside the original order of maintenance. 15. If that fact is proved before the Court which had passed the order of maintenance, then the learned Magistrate or the learned Sessions Judge was empowered to set aside the original order of maintenance. 15. Shri Kapse relied on a ruling of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sharadchandra Satbhai v. Indubai Satbhai1 wherein their Lordships observed: "It is, however, open to a wife who is unable to maintain herself, and her husband has sufficient means to maintain her but nevertheless neglects or refuses to do so, to make an application under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and seek an order for maintenance, subject to the conditions and limitations of that section. Explanation (b) of section 125(1) clarifies that even if she is a divorcee, she can claim maintenance provided she is not remarried. Subsection (4) disentitles a wife to receive allowance in certain cases, one of them being "if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband". This sub-section governs the whole of S. 125. Now, in a case like the present one, when the Civil Court bas determined the issue of desertion and held that the wife has left her husband without reasonable cause and against his wish and without his consent can it be said that she is still entitled to maintenance under section 125 and not hit-by sub-section (4)? It is plain and single that she has refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason and, therefore, disentitled herself to receive maintenance under 125. The effect of the decree for judicial separation on this particular ground of desertion cannot be overlooked by the Magistrate dealing with an application under section 125 because he has to bear in mind the disability created by sub-section (4) of that section. The fact that a decree for judicial separation has been passed in favour of the husband on the ground of desertion means that the wife is guilty of refusing to live with her husband. In our judgment, Indubai is not entitled to maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as she had no reasonable ground not to live with her husband." 16. In our judgment, Indubai is not entitled to maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as she had no reasonable ground not to live with her husband." 16. It may be pointed out that in the case cited above the facts were almost identical as in the instant case with one exception that, whereas in that case the husband had obtained a Decree for judicial separation prior to the wife's application for maintenance under section 12S of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in this case the husband had obtained a Decree for divorce on the ground of desertion after the order of maintenance had been passed. That, to my mind, can make no difference and the principle laid down in the Division Bench Judgment of this Court would also apply in the instant case. Since the Decree for divorce had been passed in this case by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in favour of the husband after the order of maintenance had been passed, the husband applied under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since that section dealt with the changed or altered circumstances and status of the parties. Sub-section (2) of section 127 expressly provided that where it appeared to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he was entitled to cancel the order or vary the same. In the instant case the Decree for divorce passed on the ground of desertion meant that the husband had proved that the wife had left him without any reasonable cause and against his wish and without his consent and, therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I respectfully agree with the reasoning in the judgment of their Lordships of the Division Bench and in any event I consider myself bound by the Division Bench Judgment. 17. Shri Kapse has also drawn my attention to two other decisions of the learned Single Judges of this Court wherein the ratio of the decision in Sharadchandra v. lndubai was followed. It is not necessary to cite these Judgments since I am relying on the Division Bench Judgment to come to the conclusion that the learned Sessions Judge was justified in canceling the order of maintenance. It is not necessary to cite these Judgments since I am relying on the Division Bench Judgment to come to the conclusion that the learned Sessions Judge was justified in canceling the order of maintenance. I agree with the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that the Petitioner-wife has become disentitled to claim maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in view of the fact that a competent Civil Court bas passed a Decree for Divorce on the ground of desertion in favour of Respondent No. 1-husband. 18. In the result, the rule is discharged. The Judgment Order of the learned Sessions' Judge, Jalgaon, dated 23.9.1981 is confirmed. Rule discharged. 1. 1978 Mah L J 123.