JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27-11-93, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sumerpur, by which the learned Magistrate dismissed the application under Sections 125(3), 125(4) and 127(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by petitioner Narain Lal - the husband of non-petitioner No. l Smt. Diwali and the father of non-petitioner No. 2 Mr. Praveen. 2. Applicant Smt. Diwali filed an application in the Court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sumerpur, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the grant of maintenance to herself being the wife as well as to her son Praveen being the minor son of the petitioner-husband Narain Lal. It has been alleged in the application that applicant Smt. Diwali has been turned-out along with the minor son from the house of Narain Lal (the husband) and she is unable to maintain herself as well as to her minor son and the petitioner has sufficient means and, therefore, the husband may be directed to pay maintenance to the applicant and her minor son. Along with the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., an application for the grant of interim maintenance was, also, moved by the applicants. The learned Magistrate awarded a sum of Rs. 250/- per month to applicant Diwali and Rs. 150 per month to applicant No.2 Praveen (the son) as interim maintenance by its order dated 18-2-92. This order of granting interim maintenance, passed by the learned Magistrate, was challenged by the husband before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, by way of filing a revision petition. The revision petition, filed by the petitioner-husband was partly allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide its order dated 11-7-92. The order of granting interim maintenance was maintained; however, the award of interim maintenance to applicant Snit. Diwali was reduced from Rs. 250/- per month to Rs. 175/- per month and of Praveen from a Rs. 150/- per month to Rs. 75/- per month. Dissatisfied with the order dated 11-7-92, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, applicant Smt. Diwali and Praveen filed a miscellaneous petition before the High Court. Both the miscellaneous petitions were heard together and disposed of by the judgment dated 19-8-92, maintaining the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali. However, it was directed that the petitioner will pay Rs. 500/- to the applicants as costs and Rs. Both the miscellaneous petitions were heard together and disposed of by the judgment dated 19-8-92, maintaining the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali. However, it was directed that the petitioner will pay Rs. 500/- to the applicants as costs and Rs. 500/- as expenses incurred by her for coming twice to this Court for the purpose of reconciliations. When these proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were in progress, the petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for the dissolution of the marriage. The suit of the petitioner dissolution of marriage was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bali, by its decree and judgment dated 1-7-92, and a decree for divorce was passed in favour of the petitioner. After the decree of dissolution of marriage, the petitioner moved applications under Sections 125(3), 125(4) and 127(2) Cr.P.C. for cancelling the order granting interim maintenance to the wife and the son on the ground that after the decree of divorce granted in favour of the petitioner on 1-7-92, applicant Diwali cannot be said to be the wife of the petitioner and she is, therefore, not entitled for any maintenance. This application, filed by the petitioner-husband Narain Lal was contested by the wife and the son and the learned Magistrate, vide its order dated 27-11-93, dismissed the application, filed by the petitioner and directed him to pay the maintenance to the wife and the son. It is against this order that the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when once the decree of divorce has been passed in favour of the petitioner on the ground of desertion then the applicant-wife is not entitled for the grant of any maintenance and the order, passed by the learned Magistrate on the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C, therefore, deserves to be quashed and the petitioner cannot be forced to make payment of the amount of interim maintenance. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this decree of dissolution of marriage, passed in favour of the petitioner, was challenged by the non-petitioners before this Court and the same was dismissed by the High Court and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner as the wife was living separately from the petitioner without any reasonable cause. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Section 125 Cr.P.C. casts a duty upon the husband to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself, and his legitimate and illegitimate children who are unable to maintain themselves, and if he neglects or refuses to maintain them then the Court can direct such person, on proof of neglect or refusal, to pay to the wife and the minor children the monthly allowance as maintenance. The husband has a moral obligation to maintain his wife and children. An interim maintenance can, also, be granted during the pendency of the application in order to protect the neglected wife and children against starvation and to tide-over the immediate difficulties. As the petitioner has neglected and refused to maintain the non-petitioners (the wife and the son), therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in awarding the interim maintenance looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is true that after the order maintenance was passed, a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion has been passed in favour of the petitioner, which was challenged by the wife before the High Court but the order was maintained. In the decree, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bali, for dissolution of marriage, the petitioner was directed to pay its. 300/-per month as maintenance to the wife and son but this order of payment of permanent alimony, passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was subjected to any other order passed by any competent Court regarding the grant of maintenance. This order, granting permanent alimony, was not challenged by the petitioner before the High Court and, therefore, that order has become final. This order, granting permanent alimony, was not challenged by the petitioner before the High Court and, therefore, that order has become final. The net result is that though a decree of dissolution of marriage has been passed in favour of the petitioner but the petitioner was liable to pay the maintenance @ Rs.300/- per month to the non-petitioners and that order has become final. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C, though a divorced wife, who is unable to maintain herself, is entitled for the grant of maintenance only if she does not refuse to live with the husband without any sufficient reason or they are living separately by mutual consent. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner and his wife Smt. Diwali are not, living separately with their mutual consent. A decree of divorce on the ground of desertion has been passed in favour of the petitioner, which means that Smt. Diwali has refused to live with her husband without any sufficient cause and, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the order of granting permanent alimony is subject to the order passed by any other Court. When she is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as she is living separately. without any sufficient reasons then no maintenance can be granted to her under the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. but she is entitled for the permanent alimony granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. But so far as the maintenance granted to the minor son is concerned, that order does not require any interference because admittedly he has been neglected by his father - the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, liable to pay the maintenance.to his son Praveen @ Rs. 75/- per month. So far as the maintenance to Smt. Diwali is concerned, she is entitled for the grant of maintenance only up to this day but thereafter she will not be entitled for any maintenance under these proceedings, however, she can claim maintenance from her husband as a permanent alimony granted by the learned District Judge by his judgment. 6. In the result, the revision petition, filed by the petitioner, is partly allowed. The application, filed by the petitioner, is allowed. 6. In the result, the revision petition, filed by the petitioner, is partly allowed. The application, filed by the petitioner, is allowed. Smt. Diwali will not be entitled for any maintenance with effect from today, but the petitioner is liable to make payment of the arrears of the maintenance to Smt. Diwali and the order granting maintenance in favour of Praveen the minor son - is, however, maintained. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is allowed three months time to make payment of the arrears of the maintenance awarded in favour of the non- petitioners provided the petitioner continues to pay the monthly allowance to the non-petitioner not by the 10th of each month. If the amount of maintenance is not paid by the 10th every month then the non-petitioners will be free to recover the amount of maintenance in a lump-sum in accordance with the law.Revision petition party allowed. *******