JUDGMENT : B.S. Kapadia, J. The present revision application is filed by the original applicant Patel Shantaben against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad on 30-10-1985 in the Criminal Revision Application No. 68/85 filed by the present respondent No. I against whom an order for maintenance was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balasinor in Criminal Misc. Application No. 46/84 on 29-3-1895. 2. The petitioner filed an application on the ground that the petitioner is the married wife of the respondent No. 1 herein ; the respondent No. 1 is of the suspicious nature ; during the wedlock she had given birth to one baby ; the respondent No. 1 is making allegations against her chastity and he started giving physical and mental torture and he was demanding divorce from the petitioner and he wanted to marry again. She was driven out after beating her and she made an application before the Tasra Police Station. The respondent No. 1 wanted to forcibly get her signature on the writing for divorce which she refused to do so and therefore, she was driven away and since that time she is residing with her mother. On the point of income she stated that the respondent No. 1 has got the land of 15 bighas and he is getting an income of Rs. 14,000 per annum from the said land and the other land also he is cultivating on crop-share basis and he is earning about Rs. 30,000 per annum in addition to the above income and she has claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400 per month. 3. The respondent No. 1 opposed the application inter alia on the ground that she has already obtained divorce and, she has voluntarily surrendered her right to maintenance and, therefore, no order for maintenance can be passed. 4. The learned Magistrate however, considering the contentions of both the parties passed the order directing the respondent No. 1 to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 180 p. m. from the date of the application. While, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge accepting the contentions of the respondent No. 1 that in the divorce deed at Ex. 20 she has voluntarily surrendered her right to claim maintenance, allowed the revision application and dismissed the petitioner's claim. 5. At the time of hearing of this application, Mr. 180 p. m. from the date of the application. While, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge accepting the contentions of the respondent No. 1 that in the divorce deed at Ex. 20 she has voluntarily surrendered her right to claim maintenance, allowed the revision application and dismissed the petitioner's claim. 5. At the time of hearing of this application, Mr. N.S. Desai, submits that the alleged divorce deed at Ex. 20 has been fraudulently obtained and he further says that there is no question of voluntarily surrounding the right of maintenance inasmuch and she herself is in very poor condition as she is residing with her widowed mother and nothing was given by way of lumpsum maintenance at the time of alleged divorce as admitted by the respondent No. 1 in his deposition. 6. Mr. A. J. Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that there is no question of consideration to be passed for the purpose of surrendering the right of maintenance because it merely amounts to effacement of her right to claim maintenance. However, the court has to examine the question as to whether the alleged sentence written in the divorce deed at Ex. 20 really discloses that she has voluntarily surrendered her right to claim maintenance. That will also depends on the attendant circumstances. It appears that unfortunately, attention of the parties and the learned Advocate was not drawn at the time of recording evidence. 7. After long drawn arguments both the learned Advocates have agreed that the matter be remanded on this point as to whether the petitioner has voluntarily surrendered her right to claim maintenance as contended by the respondent No. 1. It appears that both the learned Advocates have rightly suggested this thing as there should be sufficient evidence and therefore, I am inclined to grant the joint request of both the learned Advocates. 8. In that view of the matter the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 68/85 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court for deciding the point as to whether the petitioner has voluntarily surrendered her right to claim maintenance as alleged by the respondent No. 1 and as mentioned in the divorce deed Ex. 20. Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 68/85 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court for deciding the point as to whether the petitioner has voluntarily surrendered her right to claim maintenance as alleged by the respondent No. 1 and as mentioned in the divorce deed Ex. 20. The learned Magistrate is directed to permit both the sides to lead proper evidence on the point and dispose of the matter within six weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this court. 9. It may be stated that present dispute between the parties on the point of maintenance is pending in the court since last about 2 years i. e, from 27-6-1984 and so far I am told that the petitioner is not given a single paise by way of maintenance though the order was already passed by the learned J.M.F.C. which was subsequently set aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 10. Looking to these facts and circumstances and in view of the judgment of the supreme court in S.L.P. No. 1028/85 decided on 9-10-1985, the learned Magistrate has implied power to grant interim maintenance to the applicant under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, even though no express provision has been made in order to achieve the object of maintenance provisions. In view of the aforesaid judgment and in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I direct that the respondent No. 1 herein should pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 100 per month from the date of application by way of interim maintenance which is to be ultimately adjusted in the final order to be passed for maintenance. 11. In result, the matter is ordered to be remanded to the learned Magistrate to decide on the point her right to claim maintenance vide Ex. 20 (divorce deed) as alleged by the respondent No. 1. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the above Criminal Misc. Application within six weeks from the date of receipt of the R.&P. of this court in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law. The respondent No. I is directed to pay to the petitioner interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 per month from the date of application which amount will be adjusted at the time of making final order of maintenance. The respondent No. I is directed to pay to the petitioner interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 per month from the date of application which amount will be adjusted at the time of making final order of maintenance. Rule is made absolute. Revision allowed.