JUDGMENT:- Revision applicant Smt. Vanita is talking exception to the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court in Petition No. E-573/2000 dated 5.1.2005 by which her claim for grant of maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. was rejected. Brief facts leading to this revision application no.1 Vanta is the wife of non-application Suresh. Suresh had filed a petition for restitution for dissolution of Marriage Act bearing petition No.A-285 of 2001 in the Family Court, Nagpur and the revision application had filed Petition No.E-573/2000 in the Family Court Nagpur for grant of maintenance under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. As parties to both the proceedings were same and evidence was common, learned Principal Judge, family Court, Nagpur decided these two petitions together. Petition of the husband for divorce was allowed and marriage solemnized between the parties on 17.8.1997 was dissolved. Whereas the application filed by the wife for grant of maintenance was rejected. It may be mentioned that the maintenance was awarded to his minor daughter Neha. 2. Revision applicant seeks to challenge this order. On perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Judge, it would be seen that it was the case of the revision applicant wife that after marriage the parties had lived together at many places. She claimed that she was not treated with love and affection. Her case is further that she was brought to her parents house for delivery at the advance stage of pregnancy and expenses of her delivery was borne by her parents. Husband was not happy with the birth a daughter because he wanted a son. He had also abused her in the hospital, in the filthy language after her delivery. Alleging the Ill-treatment at the instance of her husband and improper behavior of the in-laws, she claimed maintenance, she had also approached Women Cell attached to Sakkardara Police Station and she had tried to get the matter settled, however, husband and his family members were not allowing her to stay with him. Further claiming that she is unable to maintain herself and her husband who is respondent is working as Buldozer Driver and who is earning Rs.12,000/- per month. She claimed maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Husband had denied all the material allegations. Further claiming that she is unable to maintain herself and her husband who is respondent is working as Buldozer Driver and who is earning Rs.12,000/- per month. She claimed maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Husband had denied all the material allegations. After leading the evidence, parties made submissions before the court and trial court allowed the application of the husband regarding dissolution of marriage, whereas the application of the wife as regards grant of maintenance to her was rejected. Revision applicant takes exception to that order. 4. While challenging this order, learned counsel for the applicant Shri. Ahmad has submitted that when divorce was granted, the divorced wife i.e. revision applicant was entitled for maintenance and it was a duty of the court to grant maintenance under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. As her application under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code was already there, she did not file any separate application under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He has specifically submitted that since the decree of divorce is passed against wife, revision applicant, she would be entitled for maintenance. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent Shri. Deshpande has submitted that the applicant was not ready and willing to come and reside with the husband and therefore, it was a "wrong" on her part and as such, she could not take advantage of her own wrong. Further he has submitted that reason of cruel treatment is not established. Her mother has not been examined and therefore, she would not be entitled for any maintenance. According to him, the husband - respondent had tried to bring the wife back, but she herself did not turn up, so she is not entitled for maintenance. 6. Here is the case where the marriage between the parties has been dissolved. It does appear that the application for grant of maintenance of the revision applicant was pending. When the marriage has been dissolved and the wife has not performed any second marriage, only in presence of some peculiar circumstances, she would not be entitled for maintenance. It is pertinent to note that on perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Judge, it does appear that there are some reasons calling for rejection of the claim of the maintenance of the revision applicant. 7. It is pertinent to note that on perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Judge, it does appear that there are some reasons calling for rejection of the claim of the maintenance of the revision applicant. 7. Now one thing has become certain that their marriage has been dissolved and she cannot be called back to matrimonial home. In such circumstances, even under section 125 of the Cr.P.C, she would be entitled for maintenance. 8. It cannot be lost sight of the provisions of section 125(1), wherein explanation provides for the purposes of this Chapter : "(a) "Wife" includes woman who has been divorced by or has obtained divorce from, her husband and has not remarried." She would be dis-entitled for maintenance only when she is living in adultery and without any sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband or that they are living separately by mutual consent or except for any other reason which is sufficient to dis-entitle her from maintenance. As the marriage has been dissolved, she cannot be expected to live with her husband. She is not living in adultery and they are not living separately by mutual consent, no other sufficient reason has been pointed out by the respondent to show that she is not entitled for maintenance. Thus nothing appears sufficient on record to bar her from claiming maintenance. In such circumstances, she would be entitled for maintenance and therefore to that extent the order of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court is incorrect, improper and unjust and as such it needs to be set aside by allowing this revision application in the interest of justice. 9. As regards the quantum of maintenance, considering the circumstances of the case, having heard the learned counsel, I find that she would be entitled for reasonable amount which is quantified to Rs.650/- per month, considering possible income of the respondent and the assessment of the income of the respondent by the learned trial judge. 10. Hence this revision application is allowed. The order of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court to the extent of rejection of prayer for grant of maintenance is hereby set aside. It is ordered that she would be entitled for maintenance of Rs.650/- per month from the date of the impugned order i.d. 5.1.2005. 10. Hence this revision application is allowed. The order of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court to the extent of rejection of prayer for grant of maintenance is hereby set aside. It is ordered that she would be entitled for maintenance of Rs.650/- per month from the date of the impugned order i.d. 5.1.2005. The respondent is allowed to pay the arrears of maintenance due in view of this order, within a period of six months from today. It is made clear this order shall not be construed to mean the confirmation of decree of divorce, if it is under challenge or is challenged in future. Application allowed.