1. Whether divorce by way of mutual consent will debar a divorced woman to receive maintenance under Section 125, Cr PC is the core question in this application. Before I deal with the issue in hand the facts of the case is being noticed iri brief.

2. The O.P. No. 2, namely, Rinku Devi, was married to the petitioner in the year 1995 at Gaya. On account of estrenged marital life, the O.P. No. 2 had to desert her matrimonial house. In the year, 2000 the petitioner filed a matrimonial suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act being Matrimonial T.S. No. 86 of 2000. In the year, 2001 O.P. No. 2 filed a Complaint case under Sections 498-A, 323 and 406 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act bearing Complaint Case No. 56 of 2001. Thereafter, she filed the instant maintenance case under Section 125, Cr PC in the year 2001, being Misc. Case No. 27 of 2001.

3. The O.P.s appeared in M. Title Suit No. 86 of 2000 and prayed that the instant case be amended to one under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. In the aforesaid matrimonial suit the O.P. No. 2 stated that she is consenting for the divorce in order to save her life from the petitioner. Consequently a decree of divorce was granted on 17.4.2004 by way of mutual consent.

4. In the meantime the petitioner filed an application under Section 482, Cr PC before this Court being Cri Misc. No. 25042 of 2004 for quashing the order dated 20.4.2001 taking cognizance in the aforesaid complaint case No. 56 of 2001. A bench of this Court vide order dated 19.5.2006, noticing the mutual divorce decree in Matrimonial Suit No. 86 of 2000, quashed the entire criminal prosecution contained in Annexure-6.

5. However, the proceeding under Section 125, Cr PC proceeded and the learned Family Judge, vide his order dated 6.7.2007, passed in aforesaid miscellaneous case which was renumbered as Misc. Case No. 71 of 2005/27 of 2001, passed final order directing payment of maintenance of Rs. 500/- to each of the opposite parties. In other words, the Family Court directed that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs. 500 to his wife Rinku Devi and Rs. 500/- to each of the two minor children with effect from 6.7.2007, the date of passing of the order.

6. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order also on the ground that as O.P. No. 2 has effected divorce by mutual consent and living separately, she would not be entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr PC.

7. The learned counsel in support of his contention has relied upon a decision in a case of Manayiah V/s. Smt. G. Sakuntala Kri and others reported in 1997 Cr LJ 163.

8. In the aforesaid case the husband and the wife entered into an agreement that they would divorce each other with mutual consent. Pursuant to the agreement they began to live separately. The wife thereafter filed an application under Section 125 of Cr PC for grant of maintenance. The learned Judge rejected the plea of the petitioner for maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr PC, as the marriage still subsisted in absence of any divorce.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the aforesaid Section 125(4) would not apply in case of a woman who is living separately after divorce even if the same is affected with mutual consent. He states that even prior to divorce, she lived separately as she was compelled to live so, on account of act of cruelty of her husband and others. He submits that it is very obvious that after divorce a woman necessarily lives separately. In support of his contention learned counsel for the OPs has relied upon a decision reported in case of Rohtash Singh V/s. Smt. Ramendrai and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 952, as well as in case of Vanamala V/s. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta, reported in (1995) 5 SCC 299.

10. In the back drop of the aforesaid norms and principles, I proceed to examine the issue in hand. Section 125, Cr PC relates to grant of maintenance to wives, children and parents. As pe