Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.05.2004 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has directed an interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/-per month by the petitioner to his wife Smt. Shimla, the non-petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that on 111.2002 a divorce decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on the ground that his wife had deserted him. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, under the provisions of Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth referred to as the CrPC for short), the wife is not entitled to any maintenance in case she has been divorced on the ground of desertion by her. Therefore, he has argued that she would not be entitled even to an interim maintenance. 2. However, learned Counsel for the non-petitioner has argued that the provisions of Section 125(4) of the CrPC would be operative only in case of final maintenance and not in the case of interim maintenance. Therefore, he has supported the impugned order. 3. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the impugned order 4. Section 125(1) reads as under:- If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain. (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself , .(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself , or .(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself , or .(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself , A Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in Clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.” 5. Explanation (b) defines the word “wife” as a women who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. 6. Section 125(4) reads as under:-“No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if , without any sufficient reason, she refused to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.” 7. A bare perusal of the provisions would reveal that Sub-section (4) of the Section 125 of the CrPC creates a total prohibition and disentitles a wife from any allowance/maintenance in case she refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason. In other words, if a divorce decree has been granted on the ground of desertion by the wife under Sub-section (4) she is disentitled from receiving any allowance. In the instant case, a divorce decree had been granted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 111.2002 on the ground that the wife had deserted the petitioner. Therefore, she is not entitled to receive any allowance from the husband. Keeping in view this interpretation of the law, we remand this case back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide the application under Section 125 of the CrPC, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Meanwhile, the order dated 18.05.2004 is set aside. 8. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is, hereby disposed of .