JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up for consideration of the stay petition. However, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the revision petition itself has been finally heard, as the record has already been received, and both the parties are being represented. 2. By the impugned order the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara has set aside the order of the learned trial court, whereby the application filed by the present non petitioner under Section 125 Cr. PC. was dismissed, and has ordered the petitioner to pay maintenance to the non petitioner at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month with effect from the date of application i.e. 27.11.1991. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a decree had already been passed by the learned District Judge, Banswara under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and notwithstanding that the wife is not living in the matrimonial home. Thus it cannot be said that the petitioner is failing in maintaining the wife, and maintenance could not be awarded. 4. It was also contended that the learend trial court had taken this judgment under Section 9, in consideration for dismissing the application for maintenance while the learned revisional court has not at all considered this judgment, and that vitiates the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the non petitioner supported the impugned order, and contended that the judgment passed under Section 9, firstly is ex-parte order, and secondly those proceedings were initiated much after the trial in 125 Cr. P.C. proceedings had practically come to a fag end, inasmuch as even the present petitioner's evidence was already practically over and only one witness was examined in 1997. It is also contended that the decree obtained under Section 9 can very well be said to be a decree obtained by fraud, inasmuch as Exhibit-1 produced in these proceedings is an admitted document which was produced in these proceedings way back in the year 1992, and was admitted by the present petitioner while in the witness box way back on 26.8.96, in such circumstances by suppressing this important document, he has obtained ex-parte decree and as such the petitioner cannot be allowed to claim any advantage of that decree. It is also contended that the learned revisional court has positively found that the petitioner has contracted another marriage with Dhuli and thus there is sufficient cause for the non petitioner to live apart, and also to claim maintenance. 6. Having considered the rival contentions and having perused the record, in my view, true it is that the non petitioner has not come with any clear and correct story about the time when she is alleged to be turned out of matrimonial home, but then the material as come on record that she was living at her parents house since long and, it has been found by the learned revisional court that petitioner has also contracted remarriage. In this background a look at Exhibit-1 being dated 13.11.1991 i.e. a fortnight prior to filing of the present petition for maintenance, does show that even therein it was contended by the present petitioner that he has contracted remarriage with a lady which according to the petitioner was a widow, and had communicated to the non petitioner to be free to contract remarriage. I have read the letter Exhibit-1, and it shows that by this letter the petitioner was expressing his deep anguish against the non petitioner, and conveyed his unequivocal intention of severing the matrimonial relations, while admitting to have contracted remarriage. Thus from this letter it is clear that whatever be the circumstances, or reasons, for his not keeping the non petitioner in the matrimonial home, but then he had finally made it clear that he is not to keep her in the matrimonial home. Notwithstanding this the petitioner had filed application under Section 9, around six years after this letter Exhibit-1 and obtained ex-parte decree without disclosing this fact in the Court, and from the reading of the judgment passed in Section 9 proceedings, it also does not appear that in those proceedings the petitioner may have even disclosed about his having contracted remarriage as admitted in exhibit-1. In such circumstances, the judgment under Section 9 proceedings clearly appears to have been obtained as a strategy to get over the possible results of Section 125 Cr. P.C. proceedings, and the petitioner cannot be allowed to claim any advantage thereof. 7. In such circumstances, the judgment under Section 9 proceedings clearly appears to have been obtained as a strategy to get over the possible results of Section 125 Cr. P.C. proceedings, and the petitioner cannot be allowed to claim any advantage thereof. 7. Admittedly the husband and wife are living separately and as is clear from even Exhibited-1 that the husband contracted remarriage, and admittedly the husband is not providing any maintenance to the wife. On close reading of the entire evidence of the parties, it appears that the petitioner desired to contend that the non petitioner is already earning sufficiently is having some funds, and is putting in manual labour also, but then all this could not be either proved by the husband, or could be satisfactorily elicited from the evidence produced on the side of the wife. As such the wife has rightly been held entitled to get maintenance from the husband. 8. At the same time from reading of the evidence of the parties, it transpires that the non petitioner has no brother and her other sisters had already been married, and it appears that she was living with herparents, obviously to serve them also, but after her father expired some where in 1985 or so, as the wife had admitted in her statement recorded on 28.11.1994 that her father expired 8-9 years back, and it also appears that she was maintaining herself from the properties received by her in inheritance from her father. In the totality of circumstances it further appears that since beginning she was intending to live with her parents which might not have been liked by the husband, and in that process the relations appear to have become more than strained, and the husband contracted remarriage. However, there does not appear anything in the evidence of the husband that any concrete steps were taken at the appropriate time by him to rehabilitate the matrimonial home also. However, there does not appear anything in the evidence of the husband that any concrete steps were taken at the appropriate time by him to rehabilitate the matrimonial home also. In this view of the matter, taking an overall view of the matter, I think it proper to partly modify the impugned order and direct the maintenance awarded by the learned revisional court to be payable from the date of impugned order i.e. 6.9.2000 only instead of from the date of application.Accordingly the revision petition is partly allowed, the maintainance awarded to the non petitioner is maintained, with modification that it would be payable from the date of order of the learned revisional court i.e. 6.9.2000, instead of being payable from the date of application.Revision petition partly allowed. *******