Judgment L.P.N. Shahdeo, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 16.3.1985 passed by Shri Ramesh Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.200/- per month to the opposite party who is legally married wife, from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., 15.6.1976. 2. It appears that the opposite party, the wife of the petitioner, had filed an application under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.200/- per month on the grounds that about 3 years before the filing of the petition, i.e. in the year 1973, she was assaulted by her mother-in-law and was not allowed to take meal and ultimately was turned out from the quarters of the petitioner at Sindri. His father had also made attempt to reconcile the matter and bring them to terms but ultimately he failed. It is, therefore, claimed that the petitioner purposely and willingly deserted the opposite party and had not provided any thing for her maintenance and she was living with her father within the jurisdiction of Danbad court at village Chhatabad Tola Simartanr. 3. The petitioner-husband had filed a show cause claiming that the petition was not maintainable and the Dhanbad court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The petitioner has denied that he had treated his wife with cruelty or had abused her or neglected to maintain her; on the contrary, it is alleged that the opposite party had abused and threatened her husband that she would jump in well and commit suicide. The petitioner had made all sincere attempts so that they can live with a happy married life but because of the opposite party's volatile nature she had voluntarily deserted the petitioner. 4. It appears that the petitioner-husband had examined 4 witnesses and the opposite party-wife had examined 3 witnesses. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case granted maintenance to the extent indicated above and feeling aggrieved from that order the husband-petitioner has preferred this revision. 5. Learned counsel Mr. A.S. Dayal appearing for the petitioner has raised a preliminary objection that the Dhanbad court had no jurisdiction to pass a lawful order of granting maintenance. He has further stated that matrimonial suit no. 5. Learned counsel Mr. A.S. Dayal appearing for the petitioner has raised a preliminary objection that the Dhanbad court had no jurisdiction to pass a lawful order of granting maintenance. He has further stated that matrimonial suit no. 6 of 1976 was filed at Purulia and that case was decided on 8.9.1980 and thereafter no appeal has been preferred. It stated that in that matrimonial suit, a decree for divorce has been granted and as such this present application for maintenance under section 125 of the Code is without jurisdiction and the remedy of the opposite party-wife lay in firing an application under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 6. It is the admitted position in this case that the opposite party is the legally married wife of the present petitioner. It is also the admitted position that the opposite party at present and at the time when the application for maintenance was filed, was living with her father at village Chhatabad Tola Simartanr which was within the jurisdiction of Dhanbad court. This aspect has not been disputed by the defence and also admitted in the evidence of the parties adduced in this case. In the circumstances, the Dhanbad court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application under section 125 of the Code and bas decided the matter. In this connection, section 126 of the Code prescribes the procedure where such nature of petition is to be filed which says that a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be taken against any person in any district where he or his wife resides. Admittedly in this case the wife resides within the jurisdiction of Dhanbad court which is also the finding of the trial court and in the circumstances the objection raised that this application was not maintainable at Dhanbad court, has no merit and is fit to be rejected. 7. Admittedly the opposite party is a divorced wife of the petitioner. The decree of divorce has been granted in the matrimonial suit no. 6 of 1976 which was decided in favour of the petitioner on 8.9.1980 and the judgment of that divorce suit is Ext. 7. Admittedly the opposite party is a divorced wife of the petitioner. The decree of divorce has been granted in the matrimonial suit no. 6 of 1976 which was decided in favour of the petitioner on 8.9.1980 and the judgment of that divorce suit is Ext. J. Section 125 (1) (b) of the Code says that "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried, Admittedly, in this case there is no evidence nor it is the case of the petitioner that the wife has remarried with anybody else. In the circumstances, a divorced wife also is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Code. The fact that a decree of divorce has been granted in favour of the' petitioner is of no consequence in this case and does not preclude the wife from claiming maintenance until she had remarried. Admittedly this is not the situation in this case and, therefore, a divorced wife is entitled to maintenance. 8. The moot point for consideration and decision in this case is as to whether such a divorced wife is entitled to file a petition under section 125 of the Code or she can file an application under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the relevant provisions of the Code or the Act, no bar has been imposed that a divorced wife cannot file petition for maintenance. There is no provision in the said Act, that a divorced wife is only entitled to take recourse to section 25. That will unnecessarily cause harassment and embarrassment to the wife to take recourse to file a fresh petition under section 25 of the Act, when she has already filed a petition under section 125 of the Code more than a month before the filing of the divorce suit. In this case, the petition claiming maintenance by the wife was filed in 1976. The date of first order in original record is illegible as it is torn but the next date is 12.7.1976. According to tile own admission the, matrimonial suit was filed on 24.7.1976 admittedly after a petition for maintenance was filed under section 125 of the Code. In this case, the petition claiming maintenance by the wife was granted on 16.3.1985 and the decree for divorce was passed on 8.9.1980. According to tile own admission the, matrimonial suit was filed on 24.7.1976 admittedly after a petition for maintenance was filed under section 125 of the Code. In this case, the petition claiming maintenance by the wife was granted on 16.3.1985 and the decree for divorce was passed on 8.9.1980. Under the circumstances, when a petition bas already been filed under section 125 of the Code there was no reason why the opposite party wife can be precluded to proceed with that petition even after the decree for divorce was passed The definition and spirit of the section 125 of the Code indicated that a divorced wife is entitled to file a petition for maintenance which indicates that such divorce must have been granted in accordance with the legal procedures prescribed and even after obtaining such a decree for divorce ether under the Hindu Marriage Act, or under Special Marriage Act, or under any relevant provision, a petition for maintenance under section 125 of the Code can be filed and is maintainable according to the definition of the "wife" itself. Therefore, the claim that the petition under section 125 of the Code is not maintainable and tile remedy lays for the opposite party-wife under section 25 of the Act, in the 'facts and circumstances of this case, does not arise. It is made clear that a petition under section 125 of the Code is still maintainable even though a decree for divorce has been passed by any competent Court. As no such restriction has been imposed either in the Code or under the Hindu Marriage Act, therefore, this legal point that maintenance could not have been granted under the Code is wholly, untenable, appears to be erroneous and cannot be accepted. 9. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that in the judgment of matrimonial case (Ext. 3) it has been found that the wife had voluntarily left the society of the petitioner and as such she is not entitled to maintenance. On the other hand, learned counsel, Mr. M. M. Banerjee appearing for the opposite party-wife has rightly contended that he will not claim any maintenance prior to the period of 24.7.76 when the petition for divorce was filed. A wife in not expected to live with husband when such a petition is filed making serious allegation against her and she is entitled to claim maintenance from that date. A wife in not expected to live with husband when such a petition is filed making serious allegation against her and she is entitled to claim maintenance from that date. 10. It may be noted that once, a decree for divorce has been passed, a wife cannot and should not accept to live within the company or society of her husband. The ground on which a decree for divorce can be passed is indicated in section 13 of the Act. In this case allegation has been made touching the chastity of the wife that she was living adulterous life. Under such circumstances' a wife is not entitled and cannot be asked to live in the society or in the company of the husband. The filing of the suit for divorce itself is a sufficient ground for the 'wife's refusal to live with the husband and it is also a ground to part with the company of her husband and live separately. If the wife lives separately on the ground of decree of divorce, the husband is liable to maintain her' unless she was capable of maintaining herself. In this case, evidence has been adduced which was placed and I am satisfied that the wife has no independent means to maintain her and she is living with her father. Under such circumstances, it is the statutory duty cast on the husband to maintain his divorced wife so long she does not contract remarriage. 11. Therefore, on consideration of facts, evidence and circumstances, it is concluded that the wife is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs.200/- from the date of filing of the matrimonial suit, .i.e., 24.7.1976. The judgment of the trial court is modified only to that extent that the petitioner shall be entitled to current and arrear of maintenance at the rate of Rs.200/- per month only from 24.7.1976, the date on which the matrimonial suit for divorce was filed. 12. In the result, I find no merit in this revision which is dismissed, subject to the period from which the maintenance was granted, as indicated above. Application dismissed.