JUDGMENT

Ashok Srivastava, J.—List has been revised. None is present either from the side of revisionist or from the side of opposite party No.2. Learned AGA is present.

2. An application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hapur (Ghaziabad) which was registered there as Case No.192 of 2000. It was moved by the revisionist for maintenance against her husband for herself and her minor son. During the pendency of the petition, opposite party No.2, Fayyaz, moved an application before the learned Magistrate on 17.8.2002 informing the court that he had already divorced the petitioner and had also informed his decision to her through registered post as well as by sending a telegram to her. In the said application, the opposite party No.2 had requested the court that the proceeding should be truncated and the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be dismissed. The said application was contested by the revisionist. She had specifically said in her objection that she has not been divorced by opposite party No.2 and, therefore, the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be dismissed at that stage.

3. The learned Magistrate heard the parties and