JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner-husband is aggrieved by the order dated 02.08.2008, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.4, Bikaner, whereby the learned Magistrate has granted an interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. 2. Mr. Shambhoo Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that earlier the respondent-wife was married to one Ramjan who divorced her on 17.12.1991. Thereafter, she married the petitioner. However, she has also filed an application seeking divorce from the petitioner-husband. Hence, she is not entitled for maintenance from the petitioner-husband. Moreover, the petitioner-husband is willing to keep the respondent-wife with him. According to the petitioner-husband, it is she who has deserted him. Therefore, he should be granted the benefit of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 4. The mere fact that the respondent-wife had divorced her earlier husband, Ramjan and had remarried the petitioner, is an irrelevant fact. For, under the Shariat law, a woman is permitted to remarry after she is divorced by her husband. 5. Secondly, merely because, she has filed an application for seeking divorce from the petitioner-husband would not dis-entitled her from seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel, the said application is still pending. Therefore, till the wife is divorced from the husband, she is certainly entitled to a maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.c. 6. Lastly, the issue, whether the respondent-wife has deserted the petitioner-husband, cannot be decided at the initial stage. It is an issue which is a matter of evidence. Therefore, the benefit of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. Cannot be given at the initial stage. 7. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. 8. However, considering the fact that the case has been pending before the learned Magistrate since 2006, considering the fact that five years have already lapsed, the learned Magistrate is directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible.Petition dismissed. *******