JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal miscellaneous application under section 482, Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment of Session Judge, Jaipur District, dated 30th Jan., 85 in Criminal Revision No. 51/83. The dispute is between husband and wife who have now been separated on account of a decree of divorce passed on 12th Dec., 80, which has become final. 2. The conclusive position is that the decree of divorce which has been passed, one of the grounds being adultery by the wife, has become final. The exact finding therein, is as under:- " bl izdkj ls izkFkhZ izfri{kh;k ls fookg foPNsn dh fMdzh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSa D;ksafd i=koyh ij vkbZ lk{; ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ;k dks izfri{kh us 4 o"kZ ls R;kx j[kk gS vkSj og ,MYV~h esa jg jgh gSaA " 3. Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for divorce on the ground of adultery. 4. It is thus obvious that the finding of adultery against the wife, has become final and she allowed it to become final by not challenging it anyway. 5. Sub section (4) of Section 125, Cr. P.C. reads as under:- "(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive any 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." It is common ground that the judgment of the divorce case, was filed in the trial court, and it is on the record. That judgment is binding upon both the parties, and when the adultery is proved, no court subsequent to the date of 12th Dec., 80, could have ignored it. The application for maintenance was filed on 15th Nov., 80, and the finding of adultery has been given on 12th Dec.,80, in a case of divorce, which was filed in the year 1980. It is thus obvious that time was the same, and period is virtually overlapping each other. In the divorce-case, the wife was called by the court on 20th Nov., 80, but, on that date, she did not appear, therefore, exparte proceedings were ordered. It means that the application was filed earlier to it, and in November and December, 80, the question of adultery was alive, and relevantly being considered by the divorce-court. In the divorce-case, the wife was called by the court on 20th Nov., 80, but, on that date, she did not appear, therefore, exparte proceedings were ordered. It means that the application was filed earlier to it, and in November and December, 80, the question of adultery was alive, and relevantly being considered by the divorce-court. That being so, there is not only proximity of time, but at the same time when the application for maintenance was moved, the finding of adultery was under consideration, and so, it was directly material for decision of the maintenance-case. So. Section 125(4), Cr. P.C. squarely applies to this case, and the trial court was not justified in ignoring it on the grounds which were not permissible in law. 6. The result is that this application under section 482, Cr. P.C., is accepted. The application for maintenance, is rejected, and the impugned order granting maintenance is set aside. The parties shall bear their own costs. The amount deposited in this Court, would be given to the non-petitioner, or her authorised agent.Bail granted. *******