ORDER 1. The applicants have preferred these revisions under section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.6.2005 passed by Additional Judge, Family Court, Indore in MCrC No. 941/05 whereby allowed the petition filed on behalf of the Smt. Kavitabai/wife under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code and ordered for the grant of maintenance amount of R s. 1,000/- per month in favour of the wife/Smt. Kavitabai. 2. The husband/Harish has challenged the aforesaid order for the grant of maintenance amount in favour of the wife/Smt. Kavitabai whereas the wife/Smt. Kavitabai has challenged the impugned order with regard to insufficient amount of maintenance granted by the trial Court, therefore, prayed for enhancement of the aforesaid amount. 3. As both the revisions have been preferred against the impugned order passed by the trial Court, hence both the revisions are being decided by this common order. The main order be attached with Criminal Revision No. 737/05 whereas the copy of the order be attached with Criminal Revision No. 881/05. she is not entitled to get any maintenance amount from her husband." But as stated hereinabove, in the present case, it is proved that due to the cruel treatment of the husband, the wife/Smt. Kavitabai is living separately and moreover, the husband also seeks decree for divorce against the wife. In such circumtances, the divorced wife is also entitled to get maintenance amount from the husband, therefore, the aforesaid case law are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. The learned counsel for the wife-Smt. Kavitabai placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court reported in Rohtash Singh v. Smt. Ramendri and others [ AIR 2000 SC 952 ] wherein it is held that the divorced wife is entitled to get maintenance from her husband. Though the divorce was on account of desertion by the wife. This has been held as under: 9) On account of the Explanation quoted above, 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 status of a wife for the limited purpose of claiming Maintenance Allowance from her ex-husband. This Court in Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. This Court in Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal [ AIR 1978 SC 1807 = 1979 CrLJ 3 ] observed as under: "This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by Courts are not petrified print but vibrant works with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the cause-the cause of the derelicts." 9A) Claim for maintenance under the first part of section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code is based on the subsistence of marriage while claim for maintenance of a divorced wife is based on the foundation provided by Explanation (b) to sub-section (1) of section· 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. If the divorced wife is unable to maintain herself and if she has not remarried, she will be entitled to Maintenance Allowance. The Calcutta High Court had an occasion to consider an identical situation where the husband had obtained divorce on the ground of desertion by wife but she was held entitled to maintenance allowance as a divorced wife under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code and the fact that she had deserted her husband and on that basis a decree for divorce was passed against her was not treated as a bar to her claim for maintenance as a divorced wife. {(See : Sukumar Dhibar v. Smt. Anjali Dasi [ 1983 CrLJ 36 (Cal)]}. The Allahabad High Court also, in the instant case, has taken a similar view. We approve these decisions as they represent the correct legal position. 14. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court, in the present case also the wife/Smt. Kavitabai is a divorced wife though the decree for divorce has been passed on the ground of desertion by the wife that by itself claim for maintenance cannot be refused to the wife. 14. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court, in the present case also the wife/Smt. Kavitabai is a divorced wife though the decree for divorce has been passed on the ground of desertion by the wife that by itself claim for maintenance cannot be refused to the wife. The same view has taken by this Court in Subhadra v. Rajendra Prasad [ 2003 (3) MPHT 452 ] wherein it is held that "the divorced wife is entitled to get the maintenance amount from her husband." 15. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion of over all facts and on the basis of case law on the point, in my considered opinion, the trial Court has rightly granted maintenance amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of the wife/Smt. Kavitabai and no grounds are available for any interference in the aforesaid order. Similarly, there is also no ground available for any enhancement of the aforesaid amount granted by the trial Court. 16. Resultantly, the revision petition preferred by the husbandi Harish for setting aside of the impugned order and revision preferred by wife/ Smt. Kavitabai for modification and enhancement of the maintenance amount granted by the trial Court. Both the revisions, being devoid of any merits are dismissed accordingly.