1. THIS Rule is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, murshidabad, in Criminal Motion No. 43 of 1878 allowing the application of the apposite party wife after setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate who, however, had refused maintenance to the wife on the ground that she is a divorcee and she had been paid her Deri Mohur and so she is not entitled to any maintenance. The learned Judge found that the wife is entitled to maintenance although she was a divorcee and he sent back the case to the learned Magistrate lo assess the quantum of maintenance on the basis of the evidence on record. The husband petitioner has come up in revision against the judgment of the learned sessions Judge.

2. MR. Mrinmoy Bagchi appearing for the petitioner has contended that the learned Judge erred in finding that the wife was entitled to maintenance and went wrong particularly in assessing the evidence as though he was dealing with an appeal and, therefore, the judgment is liable to be set aside. The whole case of the husband depended upon Ext. A alleged to be a 'nadabinama' wherein it was stipulated not between the parties but between th