H. Swarup, J.
1. This revision has been filed against the order of the Sessions Judge allowing the revision of the wife, who had claimed maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
2. The respondent had filed an application in the Court of the Magistrate under Section 125, Cr.P.C. on the allegation that she was married to the present applicant. Thereafter she was divorced, but she did1 not marry again. On the basis of the definition of 'wife' given in Section 125. Cr.P.C. she claimed maintenance from the husband. The husband appeared and' objected -to the maintainability of the application. The objection was accepted by the learned Magistrate and he dismissed the application on the ground that the applicant was not entitled to maintain the respondent because she had been divorced in March 1968, i.e. much before the enforcement of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, The 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge has allowed the revision filed by the wife and has held that the application was maintainable. The husband has now come to this Court to challenge the order of the Sessions Judge.
3. Section 125 of Criminal P.C. 1973 provides;-
125 (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-(a) his wife unable to maintain herself....a Magistrate... upon proof of such, neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife...
4. According to explanation (b) appended to Section 125 'wife' includes a woman, who has been divorced, or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. Thus, the woman who has been divorced would be a wife within the meaning of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. There is nothing ;n the Code to prohibit a divorcee, who had been divorced prior to the enforcement of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from being not included within the definition of 'wife', and may not be entitled to get maintenance. The Code of Criminal Procedure allows maintenance to a divorcee irrespective of the fact that she was divorced before the new Code came into force. There is, thus, no error in the order of the Sessions Judge.
5. learned Counsel contended that by reason of Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 127 of the Code the divorccee could not be treated to be the wife. There is no merit in the contention. She would be a 'wife' certainly but if the conditions of Sub-section (3) of Section 127 are established she may not be able to get mate Nance. That would however not mean that she ceases to be 'wife' for the purpose of Section 125 or other provisions of Chapter IX of the Code and not entitled to file the petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
6. The order of the learned Sessions Judge suffers from no error of law The revision is accordingly dismissed. The interim order is vacated. Learned Magistrate will now proceed to decide the case expeditiously on merits in accordance with law.