JUDGMENT Applicant Bisarad Ali has preferred this revision-petition against the order dated 15.3.1990, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahasamund (District Raipur), Misc. Criminal Case No. 40 of 1986, awarding maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month, from the date of application, i.e., 20.1.1986. None has appeared on behalf of the applicant Bisarad Ali on the date of hearing. The grounds stated in the revision-petition filed on behalf of the applicant, are that the impugned order of the Court below is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and that the Court below failed to see that the non-applicant had failed to prove her marriage with the applicant and that the nikah of the non-applicant with the applicant had not been proved although such entires are available in the register kept with the Quazi; that the Court below failed to see that protection of section 125 of Cr.P.C. is available only to the legally wedded wife; that the Court below was wrong in not accepting the documents on 15.3.1990 before arguments as prayed by the applicant; and that reasonable opportunity to the applicant to defend his case was denied. On behalf of the non-applicant, it was submitted that 'he non-applicant in this revision-petition, who was applicant in the proceedings u/s 125 of Cr.P.C., had examined herself and that it had been proved from her evidence and the documents proved by her in the said proceedings, that she was the wife of Bisarad Ali, and she had been living with him as his wife for a number of years and that, the applicant Bisarad Ali had neglected to maintain her; and that, Mst. Sofiya Begum (present non-applicant) was unable to maintain herself. It was further submitted on behalf of the non-applicant that, from the record, it is clear that the present applicant had been given repeated dates to produce his evidence, but he failed to produce his evidence and, so, the Court had rightly closed his evidence, and after hearing both the counsels, it had passed the impugned order dated 15.3.1990. No illegality has been committed by the lower Court and the order was not perverse in any way and, hence, it calls for no interference in this revision-petition. No illegality has been committed by the lower Court and the order was not perverse in any way and, hence, it calls for no interference in this revision-petition. From a perusal of the record and the statement of Sofiya Begum (P.W. 1), it stands fully proved that she was previously married to one Hamid, who had given her divorce in the year 1975, and in the same year, Bisarad Ali (applicant in this revision-petition) had been employed as a Sanitary Inspector in Nagar Palika and he was coming to her parents and, then, in the presence of two or four persons, nikah had been performed. It is also clear from the evidence of Sofiya Begum that she had lived as a wife with the present applicant Bisarad AlL Bisarad Ali had not examined himself in the case -- although repeated dates were given for producing his evidence -- as is clear from the order-sheets of the case. Even a divorced Muslim lady is entitled to maintenance u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. so long as she has not remarried, as has been held in AIR 1985 SC 945 (Mohd. Ahmad Khan v Shah Bano Begum). From a perusal of the record and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahasamund, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 40/86, it cannot be said that the said order is illegal, arbitrary or without jurisdiction. The grounds taken in the revision petition on behalf of the applicant Bisarad Ali, are not justified and it also cannot be said that the applicant was not given a reasonable opportunity to produce his evidence. There is no merit in this revision-petition preferred on behalf of the applicant Bisarad Ali and the same shall stand dismissed. The impugned order dated 15.3.1990, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahasamund, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 40/86, calls for no interference and the same is confirmed. AIR 1985 SC 945 followed.