IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.522 of 2006 TRIPTI RISHI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4 7.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner .No-one appears on behalf of Opposite Party no.2 in spite of repeated alls. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 2.5.2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Sasaram, Rohtas in Maintenance Case No.45 of 2002 thereby the prayer for maintenance made by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected . Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly the petitioner was wife of opposite party no.2. The divorce between them took place during the pendency of maintenance case. The petitioner examined herself in support of her allegation made in the petition but not a single witness was examined on behalf of Opposite Party no.2. In spite of that the court below dismissed the petition of the petitioner on the ground that there was no corroboration of evidence and that the matter of divorce was suppressed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no question of suppression of fact of divorce as certified copy of the order of divorce was filed by this petitioner during the pendency of the enquiry. It is further submitted that as per provision of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a divorcee woman is also entitled to get maintenance till she is remarried. The petitioner is not yet married Considered the submission of learned counsel for the - 2 - petitioner and perused the entire order. On perusal of the order it appears that the court below has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner as also the fact that actually the matter was not suppressed by the petitioner. The petitioner herself had filed a photo copy of the judgment of Matrimonial Suit bearing No.35/02.It further appears that the evidence of the petitioner is almost ex parte as no witness has been examined on behalf of Opposite party no.2 to contradict the evidence of the petitioner. So far maintenance to a divorcee under Section125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, the definition of „wife‟ in Explanation (b) of Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would go to show that “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. In view of the above definition of “wife” the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance even after obtaining divorce from the opposite party no.2. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law in this regard, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.5.2006 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the court below to decide afresh in the light of above observation and law enshrined in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter must be decided within two months of receipt / production of a copy of this order. B.Jha (Ghanshyam Prasad)