ORDER: The unsuccessful respondent in M.C.No.11 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Srivilliputhur has preferred the revision aggrieved against the orders dated 7.1.1999. 2. The case in brief is as follows: The respondent herein filed an application under Sec.125 of the Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance for herself as well as to her two minor children. She married the petitioner according to the custom prevailing in the community and both of them lived together at Pondicherry. Two children were born out of the said wedlock. The petitioner was often demanding money from the respondent and she was also beaten and ill-treated. The petitioner is now running an ice company at Pondicherry and getting a sum of Rs.8,000 per month whereas the respondent and her children are leading a difficult life and each of them requires a sum of Rs.500 per month. 3. The petitioner resisted the application and according to him she had left the matrimonial home on her own accord without any justifiable cause. When he went to get her, her relations abused him in filthy language. She was under the impression that the petitioner should act according to her directions. He also denied that any money was received from her family for the purpose of running a shop. He had obtained loan from Indian Bank and started a shop under the name and style “Dhanalakshmi Steel House”. But the respondent had removed some of the articles purchased by him and she had taken away the jewels and other properties worth Rs.5 lakhs and he sustained loss in the business. Since 1986 the respondent is living away and as such he filed M.O.P. No.81 of 1996 for divorce before the Family Court, Pondicherry. The other allegations relating to cruelty and ill-treatment are also denied. He is not getting a sum of Rs.8,000 per month in the business. She can claim maintenance even in O.P.No.81 of 1998 and there is no reason to file a separate petition. Out of the money and property taken from him, she had opened a provision store at Mamsapuram and as such she can live on her own accord without any maintenance from him. 4. The petitioner was examined as R.W.1 and the respondent was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.B-1 to B-11 were also marked. Out of the money and property taken from him, she had opened a provision store at Mamsapuram and as such she can live on her own accord without any maintenance from him. 4. The petitioner was examined as R.W.1 and the respondent was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.B-1 to B-11 were also marked. On the basis of the evidence and documents the trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.350 per month to the wife and Rs.300 per month each to the minors till they attain majority and aggrieved against this, the husband has come forward with the present revision. 5. Heard the learned counsel of both sides. 6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order passed by the Court below is proper and correct? 7.Point: There is no dispute that P.W.1 married R.W.1 and both of them were leading a married life at Pondicherry and they have got two children. She had claimed a sum of Rs.500 per month for each of them by way of maintenance. The marriage between the parties is admitted, but according to R.W.I she was living away without any justifiable cause and as such she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. Apart from that he had already filed M.O.P.No.81 of 1996 on the file of the Family Court, Pondicherry for divorce and also obtained an order and as such on these grounds, she is not entitled to claim any amount by way of maintenance from him. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner husband contended that the Court below failed to take note of the order of divorce obtained by him on the ground of desertion. The claim is also barred by Sec.125(4) of Criminal Procedure Code. She has also not preferred any appeal against the order of decree passed by the Civil Court granting divorce. A sum of Rs.10,000 was awarded towards marriage expenses and also a sum of Rs.10.000 was awarded towards post maintenance and they were also not taken into consideration. At any rate the sum of Rs.350 per month awarded by the Court below for maintenance is excessive. 9. When once the marriage between the parties is admitted the only question to be considered is whether the wife is entitled to claim maintenance from the husband or not. At any rate the sum of Rs.350 per month awarded by the Court below for maintenance is excessive. 9. When once the marriage between the parties is admitted the only question to be considered is whether the wife is entitled to claim maintenance from the husband or not. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence came to the conclusion that she is entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs.350 per month. Now the present revision has been filed by the husband only against the wife and contended that already he had obtained a decree of divorce in a competent Civil Court on the ground of desertion. There is no record to show that any appeal has been filed by the wife against the decree of divorce granted by the competent Civil Court. In short, when there is already a decree of divorce on the ground that she had deserted him she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on the decision reported in Hem Raj v. Urmila Devi, (1997)2 Crimes 561, wherein it was observed as follows: “Once a Civil Court has found in a contested proceedings on basis of evidence that wife had no just or reasonable cause to withdraw her society from husband, she cannot claim maintenance under Sec.125, Crl.P.C., it is not as if she had pleaded any subsequent event or circumstance which justified her to stay away from her husband inspite of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights having been passed against her”. There is no dispute about the principle in the decision and the applicability of the same depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Now the wife has come forward with a specific case that she was ill-treated and there was demand of dowry and other articles. In view of the present allegations raised by the wife, I am of the that the decision referred to above may not be applicable to the case on hand. 11. Now the wife has come forward with a specific case that she was ill-treated and there was demand of dowry and other articles. In view of the present allegations raised by the wife, I am of the that the decision referred to above may not be applicable to the case on hand. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision reported in Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri, 2000 Crl.L.J. 1498, a decision of the Apex Court wherein it was stated us follows: “A wife against whom a decree for divorce has been passed on account of her deserting the husband can claim maintenance allowance under Sec.125, Crl.P.C. and the plea of desertion by wife cannot be treated to be an effective plea in support of the husband’s refusal to pay her the maintenance allowance. After decree for divorce is passed she is under no obligation to live with the husband but though marital relations come to an end by the divorce granted by Family Court under Sec.13 of Hindu Marriage Act the respondent continues to be wife within meaning of Sec.125, Crl.P.C. on account of Explanation (b)to Sub-sec.(i) of Sec.125 which provides that a woman who has been divorced by her husband on account of a decree passed by the Family Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, continues to enjoy the statues of a wife for the limited purpose of claiming maintenance allowance from her husband. As a wife she is entitled to maintenance unless she suffers from any of the disabilities indicated in Sec.125(4)”. This decision is applicable to the case on hand in all fours. The underlying principle is that a women after divorce becomes a destitute. If she cannot maintain herself or remains unmarried the man who once her husband continues to be under a statutory duty and obligation to provide maintenance to her. Under the circumstance I am of the view that the order passed by the Court below is proper and correct. Even in respect of the amount awarded the sum of Rs.350 per month is a reasonable and proper one having regard to the status and mode of life accustomed to by the parties and also the nature of business carried on by the revision petitioner. Hence, the point is answered accordingly. 12. For the reasons stated above the revision petition fails and is dismissed. Consequently Crl.M.P.No.1983 1983 of 1999 is also dismissed.