JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This is a revision petition, filed under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.P.C., challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment and order, dated 12-09-2014, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Barpeta, in MR Case No. 510/2011, dismissing the petition filed by the present petitioner praying for maintenance allowance from the respondent, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Heard Mr. MH Ahmed, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel for respondent. 3. I have perused the impugned judgment. I have also perused the LCR including the evidence of the witnesses examined by the parties. 4. A proceeding, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was initiated by the present petitioner, as first party, before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Barpeta, praying for maintenance allowance from the present respondent/second party. 5. The case of the petitioner, as it appears from the petition, dated 06-09-2011, filed before the learned trial Court praying for maintenance is that the present petitioner got married with the respondent several years back and they have parented 3 children also. The respondent had driven out the petitioner in the year 1983 following which a maintenance proceeding was initiated against him. She and her minor children were granted maintenance allowance by the Court. Thereafter, a settlement took place between both the parties and as a result of the settlement; the petitioner went to the house of the respondent and stayed together as husband and wife. Again, since about a year, before filing of the petition, the respondent stopped maintaining her. She has no income of her own and the respondent is an Assistant Teacher in a higher secondary school, earning about Rs. 40,000/- per month. He has also landed property. Therefore, on the basis of the above facts, she has prayed to grant maintenance of Rs. 10000/- per month. 6. The respondent contested the proceeding by filing his written statement admitting the marriage between the parties as well as admitting that there was a maintenance proceeding against him initiated by the present petitioner in the year 1983, wherein an order was passed to provide maintenance to the present petitioner. He claims that he has pronounced Talaq to the petitioner, and thereafter, gave him the amount of Mahrana as well as maintenance during the iddat period. He claims that he has pronounced Talaq to the petitioner, and thereafter, gave him the amount of Mahrana as well as maintenance during the iddat period. The respondent has also stated, in his written statement, that he never stayed together with the petitioner as husband and wife after pronouncing Talaq and also did not admit that in the year 2004, the respondent married her as per Shariat practice. Now, the respondent denied that he is the husband of the present petitioner. 7. It appears from the written statement itself that in the year 2004, the respondent did not remarry the first party/petitioner, but the fact remains that this is not the claim of the petitioner, in her petition. The petitioner has never claimed, in her petition, that she got remarried with the respondent again in the year 2004; rather, her case is that after the maintenance proceeding in the year 1983, she was taken back by the respondent out of the result of the settlement and stayed together as husband and wife. According to the respondent, he is not bound to maintain his divorced wife, i.e., the petitioner. 8. I have perused the judgment of the learned trial Court, wherein the learned trial Court had framed 3 issues for determination, which are as follows: (i) Whether the 2nd party remarried the 1st party and being her husband neglected or refused to maintain her? (ii) Whether the 2nd party has sufficient means to pay maintenance to the 1st party, if so, what is the amount? (iii) What is the relief(s) the parties are entitled too? 9. The evidence of the PW1, i.e., the present petitioner before the learned trial Court is that in the year 2004 she was remarried by the present respondent (which was not stated in her petition) and they were living together thereafter. Initially, the respondent was maintaining her, but suddenly he stopped providing maintenance resulting in the present proceeding before the learned trial Court. 10. In her cross-examination, she deposed that she did not remember the date of her remarriage with the respondent. According to her, about 20/25 persons were present at her remarriage and Rs. 1,00,000/- was fixed ad dower. The remarriage was witnessed by Rahim Kaji, Abdul Rahman, Ismail, Halem and Yusuf Ali. In her cross-examination she has very specifically stated that the above persons did not appear in the Court as her witness. 11. According to her, about 20/25 persons were present at her remarriage and Rs. 1,00,000/- was fixed ad dower. The remarriage was witnessed by Rahim Kaji, Abdul Rahman, Ismail, Halem and Yusuf Ali. In her cross-examination she has very specifically stated that the above persons did not appear in the Court as her witness. 11. PW2 is the son of both the parties who deposed that in the year 2004, both the parties got remarried and after living 3/4 months together, the respondent arranged separate accommodation for the petitioner and till 2010, she was maintained by the respondent, and thereafter, stopped providing maintenance. 12. One Asan Ali Kaji, who witnessed the remarriage between the parties, was examined as witness of the respondent. He is the witness to the remarriage between the parties. 13. The respondent denied the remarriage between himself and the petitioner. 14. DW2 and DW3 appear to have supported the evidence of DW1 (respondent) that no remarriage took place between the parties to this proceeding. 15. The above evidence, on remarriage, cannot be acted upon in view of not only the inconsistency, but also for the reason that the petitioner herself deposed that her witness, to the alleged remarriage, will not appear in the Court, meaning thereby, that they are not supporting her such plea. 16. It appears from the evidence led by both the parties that the petitioner claimed that she was remarried by the respondent in the year 2004 as found from her evidence, although that plea has not been taken in the petition claiming maintenance. This has been denied by the respondent in his petition as well as in the revision. 17. The fact remains that the marriage between the parties is found to be an admitted fact and the issue remains to be decided is whether she is a divorcee or not. 18. As stated by the respondent, in his written statement as well as in the evidence, that he divorced her by pronouncing Talaq. 17. The fact remains that the marriage between the parties is found to be an admitted fact and the issue remains to be decided is whether she is a divorcee or not. 18. As stated by the respondent, in his written statement as well as in the evidence, that he divorced her by pronouncing Talaq. Whatever the facts may be, we cannot be unmindful of the fact that the proceeding before this Court is a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and that being so, the proceeding for all purpose will be governed by the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The only plea taken by the respondent is that he had given the petitioner the amount required to be given for the iddat period and Mahrana after Talaq, meaning thereby, he divorced her and as such not entitled to maintenance, but as per the provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C., a divorcee is entitled to maintenance. 19. Explanation-(b) to Section 125 Cr.P.C. defines the term ‘wife’ as to include a woman, who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. 20. In the instant case, there is absolutely no convincing evidence led by the parties that the petitioner has got remarried after the alleged divorce. That being so, there is no legal hindrance in her right to claim and get maintenance from the respondent. It may be mentioned here that remarriage by the petitioner with the respondent has been claimed in the evidence, but the same could not be proved. 21. Whatever it may be, this Court considers it necessary to leave the decision so far as the amount of maintenance is concerned to the learned trial Court for its decision and also to see whether any new fact has emerged after filing this revision, which can be brought in by both the parties, if so advised, and the learned trial Court will permit them to adduce any further evidence, if they desire, not only for the purpose of fixing of the amount of maintenance, but also to consider the factum remarriage, if any, had taken place during pendency of this revision petition before this Court. 22. Any such evidence likely to be led by the parties will be in addition to the evidence already on record. 23. 22. Any such evidence likely to be led by the parties will be in addition to the evidence already on record. 23. With the above observations and directions, in MR Case No. 510/2011 of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Barpeta, is remanded back for disposal by the learned Magistrate, in the light of the observations made above. 24. The revision petition stands disposed of, accordingly.