JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur who by the impugned order set aside the order of the learned Magistrate in a proceeding u/s 125, Criminal Procedure Code and held that the Petitioners are not entitled to receive maintenance under the said provision. 2. Petitioner No. 1 alleging to be the legally married wife of opposite party and Petitioner No. 2 alleging to be the daughter born out of their wedlock filed an application u/s 125, Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance from the opposite party. It was the case of the Petitioners that the marriage between Petitioner Nu. 1 and opposite party took place in 1976 and both of them lived together as husband and wife at Padmapur. Petitioner No. 1 conceived during that period and she was brought by her father Dolamani to her own house and then again came back to her husband during Chaitra, 1977. While she was in advanced stage of pregnancy she was taken to her own house by her parents where Petitioner No. 2 was born. Thereafter, she gave intimation to her husband, the opposite party to come and take her back but did not receive any information from him. Petitioner No. 1?s parents also requested on several occasions to take back their daughter, but was of no avail. It was, therefore, asserted to the application that the opposite party has neglected and refused to maintain his wife and daughter and would therefore be liable to pay maintenance u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So far as the income of the opposite party is concerned, the Petitioners asserted that he is a school teacher drawing a salary of Rs. 350/- per month and also has landed property to the extent of five acres. On these assertions maintenance to the tune of Rs. 400/- (Rs. 250/- for the wife and Rs. 150/- for the child) was claimed. 3. The opposite party filed an objection admitting the status of Petitioner No. 1 as the legally married wife. But according to him the wife was taken to Padmapur without his consent by her parents and notwithstanding several attempts made by the opposite party-husband to bring her back, she did not come to live with him. 3. The opposite party filed an objection admitting the status of Petitioner No. 1 as the legally married wife. But according to him the wife was taken to Padmapur without his consent by her parents and notwithstanding several attempts made by the opposite party-husband to bring her back, she did not come to live with him. As the Petitioner No. 1 did not come to her husband, the opposite party filed an application for dissolution of marriage and got a decree to that effect. It is his further case in the written statement that he has never neglected nor refused to maintain the wife and the child and on the other hand, the wife has deserted him and has refused to come back. 4. Before the learned Magistrate there witnesses were examined on behalf of the Petitioners and five witnesses were examined on behalf of the opposite party. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the entire evidence on record, came to hold that Petitioner No. 1 is the legally married wife of the opposite party and Petitioner No. 2 is their daughter. He has further found that the husband has neglected and refused to maintain the wife and the wife continues to remain in her father?s house and accordingly the husband is liable to pay the maintenance in question. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioners and taking into consideration the monthly income of the opposite party the Magistrate directed the opposite party to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/-, per month for the wife and 50/- for the child. The husband-opposite party being aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred a revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge, being Criminal Revision No. 59/5 of 1983-84. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon an ex parte decree of the Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the wife was guilty of cruelty and desertion and accordingly, she is not entitled to any maintenance. It is this order of the learned Sessions Judge, which is being impugned in the present revision. 5. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon an ex parte decree of the Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the wife was guilty of cruelty and desertion and accordingly, she is not entitled to any maintenance. It is this order of the learned Sessions Judge, which is being impugned in the present revision. 5. The short question which arises for consideration is whether notwithstanding a decree for annulment of marriage the wife and the child are entitled to any maintenance u/s 125, Criminal Procedure Code or not and what is the effect of a finding of the Court decreeing annulment of marriage in a proceeding u/s 125, Criminal Procedure Code; The provision contained in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers a statutory right to receive maintenance irrespective of the personal law of the parties. This serves a social purpose and is specially enacted to protect woman and children. A right to maintenance dependent upon personal law never is a right capable of being enforced under this section and forms the subject matter of a civil suit. But the right is altogether different from the statutory fight to the maintenance conferred by Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code in every case where a person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife or child. Under the corresponding provision of the Old Criminal Procedure Code, namely, u/s 488, Criminal Procedure Code ? (898), the right of a wife to receive maintenance was based upon the existence and continuance of the conjugal relations. Since it was a condition precedent for claiming maintenance, the ?moment? that ceased automatically it made the wife ineligible to receive maintenance u/s 488 of the repealed Code. A right of the wife to receive maintenance under that section would be defeated by the husband by obtaining a decree for divorce. To obviate this difficulty, in the present provision Clause (b) to the explanation to Section 125 (1), Criminal Procedure Code has been added to mean ?wife? includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. To obviate this difficulty, in the present provision Clause (b) to the explanation to Section 125 (1), Criminal Procedure Code has been added to mean ?wife? includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. Thus a mere divorce does not stand on the way of the wife to receive maintenance u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an application u/s 125, Criminal Procedure Code would be maintainable even if the husband has obtained a decree for judicial separation on annulment of the marriage. This is a distinct departure from the earlier provision in the Code and it has widened the definition of ?wife?. Under the present Code, therefore, an order to maintenance to a wife can be made even though the husband has obtained a decree for divorce and the wife?s right to receive the same is not fettered in any manner so long as she has not remarried. In this view of the matter notwithstanding the ex parte decree obtained by the husband opposite party the Petitioner No. 1 would be entitled to receive maintenance u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and so far as the child Petitioner No. 2 is concerned there cannot be any impediment on her receiving the maintenance in question. 6. The next question for consideration is the effect of a finding in the decree of the Civil Court. The decree of a competent Civil Court must be held to be admissible u/s 41 of the Evidence Act. But I fail to understand how a decree for divorce obtained in the present case would disentitle the wife to receive maintenance. The right to receive maintenance u/s 125 of the Code flows from the statute and if all the pre-conditions are satisfied then that right cannot be taken away in any manner. The pre-conditions u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are that the applicant is the wife and the husband neglected or refused to maintain the wife who is unable to maintain herself. If all these pre-conditions are satisfied then the wife?s right to receive maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure remains unaffected by any decree of divorce even of a competent Civil Court. If all these pre-conditions are satisfied then the wife?s right to receive maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure remains unaffected by any decree of divorce even of a competent Civil Court. On the materials on record, the learned Magistrate found that the pre-conditions have been satisfied and this finding has not been set aside by the Revisional Court. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge grossly erred in law in disentitling the wife to receive maintenance merely because of a decree of divorce obtained by the husband-opposite party. Then again so far as the right of the child to receive maintenance is concerned, the said right cannot in any way be taken away by the decree for divorce. In my view, therefore, the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge to the effect that the wife and the child are not entitled to receive maintenance is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I would hold that both the Petitioners are entitled to receive maintenance as directed by the learned Magistrate. 7. In the result, the order of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 59/5 of 1983-84 is set aside and that of the learned Magistrate is affirmed. This criminal revision is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed