JUDGMENT 1. - Instant revision impugns the order dated 8.3.1995, of the Family Court, Kota, whereby application Under section 125 Cr.P.C. of the non-petitioner was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance allowance to the non-petitioner. The only contention of Mr. L.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that decree of divorce was passed in favour of the petitioner by the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Vishakapattam on 2.9.1994. The petition before the said Court was based on the ground of adultery and the petitioner in his statement on oath stated that non-petitioner was having illicit intimacy with Ramveer Sharma, who was also made a party in the divorce petition. I have been taken through the certified copy of the judgement of learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Vishakapattam as well as the statement of petitioner. 2. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrate that the learned Family Court did not properly appreciate the order dated 2.9.1994, of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Vishakapattnam and passed the impugned order. 3. According to sub-sec. (4) of Section 126 C.r.P.C., no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from a husband under this Section if she is living in adultery. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned Family Court to properly adjudicate upon the point as to whether decree of divorce on the ground of adultery was having any material bearing of the case. In not doing so the Family Court has committed illegality in passing the impugned order. 4. Consequently, I allow the revision and set-aside the impugned order. I remit the case to learned Family Court, Kota, to decide the matter afresh in the light of the decree of divorce passed by learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Vishakapatnam. 5. Record of the case be sent back. 6. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Family Court, Kota, on 3.3.1998.Petition allowed. *******