Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. The petitioner and the respondent entered wedlock prior to about 30 years. The case of the petitioner before the Ld. Magistrate (F.C.) in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was that after some period of the marriage, she was ill treated by the respondent she could not conceive and the respondent was demanding Rs.25,000/- from her parents. He subjected her to cruelty. He eventually drove her out of the matrimonial house. She entered into house of her brother. Though she attempted 4-5 times for restitution of conjugal rights yet, he refused to restore matrimonial relations with her. Thus he neglected and refused to maintain her. She is unable to maintain herself. The respondent (husband) however is owner of about 20 acres of agricultural land which is fertile. He earns income of about 10.00 lacs per year from the agricultural lands. He runs a grocery shop, owns a tractor and a truck. He is thus having sufficient means and yet has not provided any maintenance allowance to her.

3. The respondent asserted that wife left his company before long and ultimately there took place divorce by mutual consent. The divorce was recorded in an agreement deed executed by the petitioner on 31-03-1994. At the time of such divorce, he gave amount of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner towards full and final settlement of the claim of the maintenance allowance. Consequently, she abandoned her right to recover any maintenance allowance for the future period. He further alleged that she is owner of the agricultural land gat N 0.164 consisting of 54 Rs. area and in thus having sufficient means of livelihood. He alleged that he is unable to provide separate maintenance allowance because he has not sufficient means and that due to subsequent marriage performed by him because, after the divorce he is required to maintain wife and three children. On these premises, he sought dismissal of the application for separate maintenance allowance.

4. The parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their pleadings. The Ld. Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the divorce deed could not be regarded as legal and proper. The Ld. Magistrate held that so called divorce deed (Exh.26) did not anal the marriage between the parties because no custom was proved in this behalf. The Ld. Magistrate further held that, the petitioner was not having sufficient means to maintain herself. He held that she was neglected by the respondent though he has got sufficient means to provide maintenance allowance to her. The Ld. Magistrate therefore allowed the application vide order dated 13-12-2007. The petitioner was awarded maintenance allowance @ Rs.500/- p.m. from the date of the application. The respondent preferred criminal revision application vide CRA No.1/2008. By the impugned order, the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, allowed the criminal revision application of the respondent and thereby quashed the maintenance order rendered in favour of the petitioner. Hence this Writ Petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The question for determination in the petition is whether the petitioner-wife lost he right to claim separate maintenance allowance on account of execution of the private document i.e. divorce deed (Exh.26) and that such document creates estoppal against her.

7. Before I proceed to scrutinize the evidence and consider the rival submission, let it be noted that there is no tangible evidence to infer that there is a custom prevailing in the caste, to which the parties belongs which recognizes such divorce by mutual consent merely on execution of a private document.

8. It is only when, there is a custom prevailing in the community of parties such customary divorce may be recognized as legal one. Otherwise, divorce must be as per requirement of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. The recitals of the private document (Exh.26) wo