JUDGMENT - S.S. PARKAR, J.:---The above two petitions are filed against the judgment and order dated 22nd October, 1993 delivered by the Sessions Judge, Nasik in Criminal Revision Application No. 252 of 1992 whereby husband's revision application was partly allowed and the amount of monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- granted by the J.M.F.C. Igatpuri in favour of the wife was reduced to Rs. 200/- per month. 2. These petitions arise in the following circumstances : The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1375/93 is the husband who had obtained a decree of divorce against respondent No. 1 wife Sitabai in the year 1963. Before obtaining the decree of divorce the husband had obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife. Since the wife had not complied with the said decree, the husband obtained a decree of divorce. Wife filed application for maintenance under section 125 of Cri.P.C. in the year 1991 by filing Misc. Petition No. 138 of 1991 in the Court of J.M.F.C., Igatpuri. The defence of the husband was that since he had obtained initially decree for restitution of conjugal right and thereafter divorce on the ground of desertion of the wife, the wife is not entitled for maintenance. The trial Court allowed the application by judgment and order dated 18-7-1992 and the husband was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to the wife from the date of application. That order was challenged by the husband in the Criminal Revision Application No. 252 of 1992 in the Sessions Court, Nasik which was partly allowed. Against the said order the present two separate petitions have been filed by the husband and wife. 3. According to the petitioner-husband the wife is not entitled for maintenance at all she being a defaulting party. The wife has challenged the order of the Sessions Court reducing the amount of maintenance from Rs. 500/- p.m. to Rs. 200/- p.m. which was originally granted to her by the trial Court. Since both the petitions arise from the common judgment and order of the Sessions Court, Nasik, both are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Mr. 500/- p.m. to Rs. 200/- p.m. which was originally granted to her by the trial Court. Since both the petitions arise from the common judgment and order of the Sessions Court, Nasik, both are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Mr. Karnik appearing on behalf of the petitioner-husband contended that under Clause (b) of Explanation added to sub-section (1) of section 125 of Cri.P.C. the respondent, who is a divorced woman, is not covered as decree of divorce had been obtained against her. He places reliance in support of his contention on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Bhagwan Raoji Dale v. Sushma alias Nanda Bhagwan Dale and another)1, reported in 1999(5) Bom.C.R. 851 to which I was a party. No doubt that was a case where it was held that the divorced woman is not entitled for maintenance if she was divorced by a decree obtained against her by the husband. However, that judgment is overruled by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Rohtash Singh v. Smt. Ramendri others)2, reported in 2000(3) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)236. In that case also the identical question had arisen in similar circumstances. The husband had obtained decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and thereafter the wife applied for maintenance under section 125 of Cri.P.C. The Supreme Court held that the defence under sub-section (4) section 125 of Cri.P.C. is available to the husband against the wife when the marriage is subsisting and it would not be available after the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce even at the instance of the husband as there was no question of wife living in adultery when there was divorce between the parties and that there was no question of wife refusing to live with her husband without any sufficient reason when there was a divorce between them nor the parties could be said to be living separately by mutual consent after the decree of divorce is passed between the parties. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the divorced wife was entitled for maintenance from her husband in case she becomes destitute and was unable to maintain herself and has not remarried. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the divorced wife was entitled for maintenance from her husband in case she becomes destitute and was unable to maintain herself and has not remarried. This decision of the Supreme Court overrules the view taken in similar situation by the Division Bench of this Court in Bhagwan Dale's case referred to above. 5. Mr. Karnik then submitted that the decision of the Division Bench in the Bhagwan Dale's case was based on the decision of a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of (Mst. Zohara Khatoon v. Mohd. Ibrahim)3, reported in 1981(2) S.C.C. 509 . Since I was party to the judgment of the Division Bench in Bhagwan Dale's case it would be expedient for me to explain under what circumstances the above view was taken. The decision in the case of Zohara Khatoon pertains to the application made for maintenance by wife who had obtained divorce against the husband. No doubt it was a decision by three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court where the main judgment of the Court was delivered by Fazal Ali, J., while a separate concurring opinion was given by Justice Koshal. No doubt in that case also the Supreme Court was considering the effect of Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 125 of Cri.P.C. A distinction was made in the two clauses or limbs of the Explanation, one limb being," a woman who has been divorced by", and the other "or has obtained a divorce from her husband". The question before the Supreme Court in that case was whether the wife could be said to have obtained a divorce from her husband. By virtue of Act of 1939 the Muslim Women were given right to apply for divorce and obtain a decree from a Court of law. In that context, it was observed by the Supreme Court that the first limb of Clause (b) of the Explanation covered the cases where woman was divorced by unilateral act of husband as under Muslim Law and second limb of Clause (b) of the Explanation covered the cases where the wife had obtained divorce from the Court under the Act of 1939. Both, the main judgment as well as the concurring judgment held that wife had obtained decree of divorce and, therefore, was covered by second limb of the Explanation to section 125(1). Both, the main judgment as well as the concurring judgment held that wife had obtained decree of divorce and, therefore, was covered by second limb of the Explanation to section 125(1). When the decision in Bhagwan Dale's case was rendered by the Division Bench, there was no other direct decision of the Supreme Court on the point and the Supreme Court did observe by way of obiter that first limb of the Explanation (b) covered the cases where the wife is unilaterally divorced by the husband and under second limb of the Explanation the wife who has obtained decree of divorce from the Court was entitled for maintenance. Going by those observations of the Supreme Court as to the interpretation of two different limbs of the Explanation (b) to section 125(1) of Cri.P.C. it was held by the Division Bench that in a case where the husband has obtained a decree of divorce against the wife, the wife would not be entitled for maintenance as husband could have legitimately raised the defence under sub-section (4) of section 125 of Cri.P.C. that she refused to live with him without sufficient reason. That view is expressly overruled by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Rohtash Singh's case which is referred to above and, therefore, I cannot accept the contention raised on behalf of the husband in this matter. The courts below have rightly held that the divorced wife was entitled for claiming maintenance against her former husband under section 125 of Cri.P.C. 6. This leads me to consider the wife's petition, being Cri.W.P. No. 646/94, filed for challenging the reduction of maintenance amount by the Sessions Court from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 200/- per month. That question is purely a question of fact and matter of appreciation of evidence. The Sessions Court has elaborately discussed this point in paragraphs 10 to 12 of the judgment. The Sessions Court has considered the income of the husband which was about Rs. 2,500/- to 3,000/- per month and that he had to maintain his second wife and unmarried children of second wife. He had also considered that the respondent wife was also working as vegetable vendor in addition to the fact that she was owning some landed property from her father. Before death, her mother sold the house for a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. He had also considered that the respondent wife was also working as vegetable vendor in addition to the fact that she was owning some landed property from her father. Before death, her mother sold the house for a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. Even the respondent wife has not showed the acreage of land inherited by her from her father. She had her own grown-up son and she is staying separately from her own son. After considering all these aspects and the properties of both the sides, the Sessions Court has reduced the maintenance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 200/- per month. I see no reason to reappreciate the evidence and interfere with the finding of fact. Even otherwise I do not find any flaw in the appreciation of evidence as regards the income of the parties by the Sessions Court. 7. In the result, I confirm the impugned judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Nasik dated 22nd October, 1993 in Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 1992 and dismiss both these petitions. The rule is discharged in both the petitions. Interim relief granted in terms of prayer Clause (c) by this Court in Cri.W.P. No. 1375 of 1993 at the time of admission is vacated. On the application of Mr. Karnik, the husband, who is petitioner in Cri.W.P. No. 1375/93, is granted four months time to pay the arrears of maintenance which were not deposited earlier pursuant to the order of stay passed by this Court. The husband is liable to pay the current maintenance amount regularly to the wife as per the order of the Sessions Court, Nasik. Petitions dismissed. -----