JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order of Judge, Family Court whereby her application filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from her husband (non-petitioner) had been dismissed on the ground that since the parties were living separately by mutual consent, as per section 125(4) Cr.P.C., the petitioner was not entitled to any maintenance. 3. The petitioner's contention is that in the case in hand provisions of section 125(4) Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be attracted because the parties are divorced and the divorced wife, until she remarries, is entitled to claim maintenance from her former husband. 4. Per contra, the contention of non-petitioner was that as per the terms of Ex. A-1 it was agreed that the petitioner had no claim or demand from the non-petitioner and, therefore she was not entitled to any maintenance. 5. I have looked into Ex. A-1 which shows that the parties had settled their terms and got them entered in Ex. A-1. None of the parties has challenged the validity of Ex A-1. If this court proceeds on the premise that this is a valid agreement wherein the petitioner herself stated that because of differences between her and her husband , she had no objection to the divorce and she had no claim or demand from him and that her husband was at liberty to marry anyone he wanted, it tantamounts to a divorce by mutual consent. 6. Now the question arises is that whether the divorced wife is entitled to maintenance or not. 7. I have gone through the relevant provisions u/s 125(4) Cr.P.C. which reads as under. "125. (4) 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 refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent." 8. Placing reliance on The judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Gurmit Kaur v. Surjit Singh alias Jeet Singh, (1996) 1 SCC 39 , learned counsel for the petitioner submits that and concept of living separately by mutual consent arises so long as the marriage subsists and when the parties agree to live separately by consent, no party is entitled to lay and claim for maintenance from the other party. 9. 9. I have gone through the Apex Court's pronouncement in this case. The Apex Court in para 7 held as under : "In view of the divorce agreement referred to herein above, the marital relations have come to a terminus. By virtue thereof, the respondent had already contracted the second marriage. In other words, the first marriage has been put to an end. The appellant thereby became entitled to claim maintenance and will continue to do so, so long as she remains unmarried and she is unable to maintain herself." 10. In view of the principle of law laid down by Apex Court in Gurmit Kaur's case (supra), this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.11.2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court in application no.189/2006 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Judge, Family Court NO.1, Jaipur to decide afresh the application of the petitioner u/s 125 on the basis and of evidence of both the parties within a period of three months. 11. The record of the trial court be remitted back forthwith.Revision petition allowed *******