JUDGMENT : Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J. 1. Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record. 3. The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order dated 14.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Meerut in Maintenance Case No.292 of 2014, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Sarurpur Khurd, District Meerut. Whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that revisionist is original applicant before the court below and she has filed an application for maintenance before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut on 02.04.2014 with averment that revisionist was married with opposite party, Ravindra Singh on 09.04.2008 according to Hindu rites and rituals, in which, her father had spent around Rs.8 lakh. Opposite party No.2 resides at the place of maternal grand-father situated at village- Daha, Police Station Doght, District Baghpat. The marriage ceremony was performed by his maternal uncle and she was sent off to the place of maternal uncle of opposite party after marriage where she was residing. The couple is not having any issue ('offspring'), the opposite party and his maternal relatives were not satisfied with the dowry and gifts obtained in the marriage, due to which, they started additional demand of dowry i.e. swift car from the applicant and when she expressed her inability to bring the dowry from her parents, she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty and harassment. She has also initiated a criminal proceedings for demand of dowry and matrimonial cruelty against maternal relatives, which is pending consideration. Opposite party No.2 and his maternal uncle are habitual drinker and they used to torture the applicant in the night after consuming liquor. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that on 20.03.2013, revisionist was badly beaten by opposite party No.2 and his maternal relatives, and thereafter she was thrown out near government tube well situated at her parental place. Since then they had not taken care for her and her streedhan is still in possession of opposite party No.2 and his relatives. Opposite party No.2 has agricultural land, house and a petrol pump, which he operates in a partnership of his maternal grand father. Since then they had not taken care for her and her streedhan is still in possession of opposite party No.2 and his relatives. Opposite party No.2 has agricultural land, house and a petrol pump, which he operates in a partnership of his maternal grand father. He also has another petrol pump of ESSAR Company at village Radhauda, Tehsil Badaut, District Baghpat. Opposite party No.2 is also having a gas agency at Village Binauli, Tehsil Badaut District Baghpat. The total income of the opposite party is around Rs.2,45,000/- from all sources. The revisionist is legally wedded wife of opposite party No.2 and she has been deserted by her husband, therefore, she has claimed total Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance coupled with mediation cost. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that learned court below has wrongly dismissed her application for maintenance on the ground that claim of maintenance raised by the applicant is barred by Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. and she has refused to live with her husband without sufficient cause. He next submitted that revisionist has filed written argument, in which, all the points involved in the case were duly addressed. The court below has not even gone through the written argument while passing the impugned judgment and order. He next submitted that all the documents filed by the opposite party No.2, before the court below, have been denied by the revisionist and also they are not duly proved. The revisionist has filed a photo copy of receipt of insurance premium LIC Policy No.2482439560, wherein name of her husband is shown as Sushil Kumar, R/o village Rauli Kalan, P/O Muradnagar, Ghaziabad. This paper being a photo copy is not an evidence and no inference can be drawn against the revisionist on that count. She is M.A. in History, but she did not receive any professional qualification and she is unable to maintain herself. He also submitted that all the academic documents of the revisionist are forcefully retained by opposite party No.2 and he is misusing them to detriment of the revisionist. 7. She is M.A. in History, but she did not receive any professional qualification and she is unable to maintain herself. He also submitted that all the academic documents of the revisionist are forcefully retained by opposite party No.2 and he is misusing them to detriment of the revisionist. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that court below has not placed reliance on the version of the opposite party No.2 that revisionist is legally wedded wife of respondent No.2 and claim of maintenance has been dismissed only on the ground that same is barred under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. The court below has also drawn wrong inference that allegations of demand of dowry, harassment and matrimonial cruelty levelled by the opposite party No.2 and his relative is not found reliable. He lastly submitted that opposite party No.2 is a very affluent person and he is man of criminal propensity and his petrol pump was seized due to irregularities in operation of the same, the FIR was lodged against him, in which, he was sent to jail. He also submitted that opposite party No.2 has assailed the said summoning order by filing an Application (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) before this Court, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2024 for want of prosecution. In that situation, how court below reached a conclusion that allegations of matrimonial cruelty or demand of dowry does not inspire confidence. Inasmuch as written statement filed by the opposite party No.2 before the court below has not been supported with any affidavit whereas it is essential under provisions of Cr.P.C. The revisionist has never married with some Sushil Kumar as claimed by opposite party No.2. She has never moved an application for gas connection. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that opposite party No.2 has levelled false allegations against the revisionist that she has solemnized re-marriage. In fact, opposite party No.2 has himself solemnized re-marriage after obtaining ex-parte decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act from Family Court, on 17.02.2012. Revisionist has assailed said exparte decree of divorce by filing a Misc. Case No. 3 of 2016, which is pending before the family court. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that findings of the court below are against the strength of evidence appearing on record and same cannot be sustained. Revisionist has assailed said exparte decree of divorce by filing a Misc. Case No. 3 of 2016, which is pending before the family court. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that findings of the court below are against the strength of evidence appearing on record and same cannot be sustained. The revision of the revisionist is liable to be allowed and she is entitled to receive proper maintenance from opposite party No.2, who is having sufficient source of income to maintain her. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has submitted that court below has considered all the aspects of the case in the impugned judgment properly and dismissed the claim of maintenance raised by revisionist in application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 11. According to version of revisionist, petrol pump operated by the opposite party No.2 has been seized in legal proceedings and he is no longer deriving any income therefrom. The opposite party No.2 has denied the grounds taken in present revision in counter affidavit and same has not been specifically controverted by any rejoinder affidavit by the revisionist. He has filed a copy of receipt of insurance premium issued by LIC, Meerut Division in favour of the revisionist as a policy holder, in which, name of husband is shown as Sushil Kumar, resident of village Rauli Kalan, Post Office Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad and nothing has been averred by revisionist in regard to this receipt. He next submitted that revisionist on her own and without any valid reason had left the house of opposite party No.2 on 16.06.2009 and went to the house of Amar Pal (brother) alongwith her jewelry and cash. The opposite party No.2 did not have any gas agency or agricultural land. The license of petrol pump, which was being operated by opposite party No.2 in partnership with other persons was seized in the year 2022 and the licence has been terminated. The opposite party No.2 had tried his best to bring back his wife, but she did not oblige. 12. The opposite party No.2 had also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and same was decreed on 17.11.2021, even then the revisionist never came to live with him and thereafter, he filed a matrimonial suit for divorce which was decreed on 17.02.2012. Thereafter, opposite party No.2 contacted second marriage. 13. The opposite party No.2 had also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and same was decreed on 17.11.2021, even then the revisionist never came to live with him and thereafter, he filed a matrimonial suit for divorce which was decreed on 17.02.2012. Thereafter, opposite party No.2 contacted second marriage. 13. On perusal of the record, it appears that application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the revisionist Smt. Sarita on 02.04.2014, which was decided by the impugned judgment and order dated 14.08.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in Maintenance Case No.292 of 2014. Prior to filing of this maintenance case, by the revisionist, the opposite party No.2, who is husband of the revisionist had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, which was decreed exparte, vide judgment and order dated 17.01.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), District Baghpat and revisionist was directed to be resided with the opposite party No.2, Ravindra Singh at his place and performed her matrimonial obligations. As according to opposite party No.2, the original applicant had not complied with this decree of restitution of conjugal rights. The opposite party No.2 had no option but to file divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court on the ground of commission of matrimonial offence of desertion by his wife Smt. Sarita. This divorce petition was decided exparte vide judgment and order dated 17.02.2012 and marriage between the parties solemnized on 09.04.2008 was dissolved. The revisionist has stated that she had filed restoration application for setting-aside said exparte judgment and order before the trial court, which is pending. In the present case also, trial court has rejected the claim of maintenance made by original applicant Smt. Sarita, after considering the pleadings of the parties and appreciating the evidence adduced by them, has given a finding that the marriage of the applicant Smt. Sarita was solemnized with opposite party No.2 on 09.04.2008 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The compromise was also entered between the parties, a copy thereof has been filed by opposite party No.2 was on record. The revisionist is legally wedded wife of opposite party No.2. The compromise was also entered between the parties, a copy thereof has been filed by opposite party No.2 was on record. The revisionist is legally wedded wife of opposite party No.2. She has made allegations of torture, harassment and practicing matrimonial cruelty against her husband, but she has failed to specify in her evidence as to when and on which date, month and year, she was subjected to marpeet and torture between the period 2008-2013. The parties entered into a compromise on 26.12.2013, wherein it was agreed that opposite party No.2 will pay Rs.1,25,000/- to the revisionist towards maintenance and no further action will be carried out for exchange of goods between the parties. The revisionist had filed a complaint before Mahila Thana, District- Meerut on 27.03.2014, which was inquired into by the police and both parties were summoned at Police Station. A copy of inquiry report of Mahila Thana, District Meerut is on record as Paper No.26-C of 2017, in which, it is stated that the revisionist has given exaggerated version in the application and in confidential inquiry, the incident was not found proved. The court below has observed that this inquiry report is admissible in evidence by virtue of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 14. The revisionist Smt. Sarita has produced herself in evidence in support of her version and even her parents and family members have not been examined to corroborated her version. When she was subjected to marpeet, torture and cruelty by opposite party No.2, whereas she has admitted in her evidence that between 09.04.2008 to 20.09.2013 she remained with opposite party No.2 in his village. 15. After appreciation of evidence, court below has given a categorical findings that the revisionist has failed to establish this fact that she has been living separately from her husband due to sufficient reasons. Whereas Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides that " no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance or the maintenance 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". With the above findings, court below has dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party No.2- Ravindra Singh. With the above findings, court below has dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party No.2- Ravindra Singh. The above finding of the court below that the claim of the revisionist is barred by Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C., which is based on appreciation of evidence on record and cannot be termed as perverse. Therefore, no interference in above findings given by the trial Court is warranted in present revision. 16. It is also noticeable that the exparte decree of divorce has been granted on petition of opposite party No.2 against the revisionist by competent court vide judgment and order dated 17.02.2012, which implies that marriage between the parties was already dissolved when the maintenance petition was filed by the revisionist and there is nothing on record to suggest that said exparte decree of divorce is now non-existent or set-aside. The exparte decree of divorce has been granted on the ground of desertion, which is a matrimonial offence. Therefore, the family court has granted decree of divorce to the opposite party No.2 against the revisionist under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, vide judgment dated 17.02.2012 on the ground of desertion. The same Court has declined to grant maintenance to her on the ground of desertion i.e. she refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason as provided under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. 17. Thus, the finding of the court below in one proceeding on this aspect is fortified by the finding given in other proceeding before the same parties. One in matrimonial suit of divorce and other in subsequent petition of wife seeking maintenance under Section125 Cr.P.C. from her husband. 18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohtash Singh Vs. Smt. Ramendari and others 2000 (2) SCC 180 has held that since a decree of divorce has been passed on the ground of desertion by respondent, she would not be entitled to Maintenance for any period prior to the passing of the decree under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Hon'ble Court observed as under:- "Claim for maintenance under the first part of Section 125 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr. The Hon'ble Court observed as under:- "Claim for maintenance under the first part of Section 125 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr. P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. 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) Crl. L.J. 36. 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." 19. Thus, in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohtash Singh Vs. Smt. Ramendari and others (supra), this court is of the considered opinion that although the court below has rightly given a finding that the revisionist failed to establish a case that she refused to live with her husband with sufficient reasons, her claim of maintenance was not liable to be dismissed, because the marriage between the parties was already dissolved by decree of divorce passed in the year 2012, much earlier than filing of maintenance petition by the applicant in the year 2014. Thus, revisionist is entitled to seek maintenance from her husband as a divorcee till her remarriage, even if she has been found guilty of matrimonial offence of desertion in decree of divorce and is dis- entitled to seek maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. during subsistence of her marriage. The bar of Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. gets lifted after passing of decree of divorce and dissolution of marriage between the parties. 20. Thus, the decree of divorce which was passed against her in the suit of opposite party will not be treated as a bar to her claim for maintenance as a divorced wife. The bar of Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. gets lifted after passing of decree of divorce and dissolution of marriage between the parties. 20. Thus, the decree of divorce which was passed against her in the suit of opposite party will not be treated as a bar to her claim for maintenance as a divorced wife. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order is not liable to be sustained in the light of foregoing discussion and deserves to be set-aside. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist is not barred by Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. and she is entitled to claim maintenance as a divorcee. There is nothing on record that the applicant/revisionist was aware of exparte decree of divorce at the time of filing maintenance petition. 21. The impugned judgment and order is set-aside and the matter is remitted to learned court below with direction that the matter will be reheard in the light of observations made in this revisional judgment and will be decided in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, as maintenance case was filed in the year 2014. It is also directed that respondent No.2 shall pay Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the revisionist from the date of judgment to fresh decision on maintenance petition, i.e. Maintenance Case No.292 of 2014, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 22. The revision stands allowed.