:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1223 OF 2002 Shri. Parasshram K. Shinde. ..Petitioner. Vs. Smt. Asha P.Shinde. ..Respondent. Mr.S.B.Shetye for the Petitioner. Mr.M.S. Karnik for the Respondent No.1. Mr.R.S. More,APP. for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATED : 15.4.2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This is a writ petition impugning judgment and order dated 3.8.2002 passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Nashik allowing a revision filed by the husband and granting maintenance to the petitioner wife at the rate of Rs.1000/-p.m. from the date of filing of the application i.e. from 28.7.2000. 2. Earlier the J.M.F.C. whose order was impugned before the Sessions Court has rejected the wife’s application under Section-125 of the Cr.P.C. 3. The facts of the case are that the parties are married on 22.2.1973. A son was born out of the marriage. However, on 22.12.1980 parties entered into a divorce agreement. Under this agreement which was executed on stamp paper custody of the child was given :2: to the wife and amount of Rs.6500/- was given to the wife as permanent maintenance. By the said agreement the wife has given up her right to claim future maintenance. The record indicates that at the time of executing this document, proceeding under Section 125 was filed by the wife and on the basis of this document, proceeding under Section-125 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed under the order of the J.M.F.C. Court on 30.12.1980. 20-years later the wife has filed an application contenting that divorce agreement was not legal. It is never disputed between the parties that the said document was entered into and therefore, earlier 125 proceeding was withdrawn by the wife and thereafter for last 20 years parties have been staying separately. 4. In this background the wife filed a second application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. On 28.7.2000. The J.M.F.C., in view of the aforesaid facts dismissed the application. Reliance was placed upon Section 125(4) and judgments under that section. The Revisional Court however, has allowed the revision on a footing that an agreement for divorce by mutual consent has no legal force and divorce cannot be effected as there was no evidence to show that custom of the parties permitted such a divorce. The Revisional court however, has not dealt with the provisions of Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, the impugned :3: judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court requires to be set aside and accordingly the judgment and order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik dated 3.8.2000 in Criminal Revision Application No.360 of 2001 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the said court for giving a decision after considering the provisions of Section 125(4) and its applicability to the facts of the case. In the circumstances, petition is disposed off. The Revisional Court to decide the matter as per the aforesaid directions of this court within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the writ of this court. (R.S. MOHITE, J.)