JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant revision petition filed under section 397 r/w Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code petitioner-Smt. Sahida Bano along with her two minor daughters Monisha and Nisha has challenged the order dated 17.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bikaner modifying the order dated 20.11.2001 passed by the learned ACJM No. 1, Bikaner restricting the interim maintenance awarded under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code upto the date of filing of reply i.e. 22.1.2001. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners herein filed an application under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of ACJM No. 1, Bikaner on 4.9.2000 on the ground that respondent-husband Mohd. Rafiq inspite of having sufficient means refused to maintain her. It is averred that Mst. Sahida married to Rafiq in March, 1998. Out of their wedlock, she gave birth to two female babies viz; Monisha and Nisha. She was turned out along with her two children from the house on 6.6.2000. The respondent-husband filed the reply on 22.1.2001 wherein he admitted the factum of marriage on 27.3.1998 but pleaded that the same was dissolved by divorce. It is averred that the registered notice of divorce was sent to the petitioner herein on 22.8.2000but the same returned with the endorsement to the effect that she refused to accept the same. The divorce was declared on 25.8.2000 after 'Namaj' of 'Jumma'. He also pleaded that he was a patient of T.B. and the marriage was never consumated. He denied even the fact of both the daughters being given birth as a result of his physical relations with her. However, he agreed for the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month to his wife Sahida and Rs. 300/- each to two daughters viz; Monisha and Nisha. The learned ACJM as per the agreement between the parties, directed for payment of interim maintenance as aforesaid with effect from the date of application i.e. 4.9.2000. The respondent-husband preferred a revision petition against the said order, which was eventually heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bikaner. He was of the view that as the marriage has been dissolved by divorce, petitioner-wife is entitled to only maintenance till the date of filing of reply by respondent-husband. The respondent-husband preferred a revision petition against the said order, which was eventually heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bikaner. He was of the view that as the marriage has been dissolved by divorce, petitioner-wife is entitled to only maintenance till the date of filing of reply by respondent-husband. Thus, he modified the order of the learned ACJM and restricted the interim maintenance payable only upto 22.1.2001. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The impugned order suffers from manifest error inasmuch as the plea of respondent-husband to the effect that divorce had taken place, has yet to be adjudicated by the Court. Simply because a registered notice has been given and a declaration has been made after 'Namaj' of 'Jumma', it cannot be said that the marriage has been dissolved. It is held by the Apex Court in Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. reported in RLW 2003(1) SC 148 : 2003 Cr. L.R. (SC) 24 that a plea of previous divorce taken in the written statement cannot at all be treated as pronouncement of 'talaq' by the husband on wife on the date of filing of the written statement, unless a finding is recorded by the trial Court as to dissolution of marriage by divorce. The husband is liable to pay maintenance until an obligation, comes to an end in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bikaner dated 17.10.2002 is quashed and set aside. The order dated 20.11.2001 passed by the ACJM 4o. 1, Bikaner is restored. The record be returned forthwith.Petition allowed. *******