( 1 ) SUBHASH Verma has filed this petition thereby challenging the order dated 13. 10. 1993 of Shri O. P, Dwivedi, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, vide which the revision petition of Smt. Neelam was allowed and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was directed to assess the quantum of maintenance payable to Smt. Neelam, petitioner No. 1.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that Smt. neelam and her minor daughter Kumari Sonia (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners ) filed a petition for maintenance against Shri Subhash Verma (hereinafter referred to as the husband ) for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the code ). Averments made in the aforesaid petition were that Smt. Neelam was married to Subhash Verma on 20. 9. 1977 according to hindu rites and she started residing with her husband. It was further pleaded that from the very beginning Suhash Verma started maltreating her and ultimately she was turned out of the matrimonial home in September, 1979 and while staying at the house of her parents she gave birth to adaughter, viz. Sonia, on 1. 10. 1979. It was also claimed that after sometime the husband filed a petition for divorce against the wife on the ground of desertion and ultimately a decree of divorce was passed on 22. 9. 1984. It was claimed that she was not having means to maintain herself and her daughter and the husband was neglecting them and, so, a claim was made for a sum of Rs. 500. 00 per month for the wife and a sum of Rs. 500. 00 per month for the daughter. ,

( 3 ) THE application was contested by the husband and ultimately vide order dated 27. 2. 1993 the husband was asked to pay maintenance to his daughter Sonia at the rate of Rs. 200. 00 per month from the date of application but the application of the wife for the grant of maintenance was dismissed on the ground that she was guilty of desertion, as was held by the matrimonial court and, thus, not entitled to maintenance.

( 4 ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the petition of the wife claiming maintenance was wrongly dismissed and, thus, accepted the revision petition and the case was remanded back to the learned trial court vide the impugned order.

( 5 ) I have heard Shri Shiv Khorana, learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the judgements.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has gravely erred in setting aside the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the petition of the wife for maintenance since she was responsible for having left the house of the husband without any valid ground and she refused to perform her obligation as a faithful wife. He has also submitted that the Civil Court has recorded a finding with regard to the wife having desertd her husband and it was on that ground that a decree for divorce was passed and that, in these circumstances, she forfeited her right to claim maintenance from the husband. He has also submitted that she having declined to perform her matrimonial obligations as a wife could not he allowed to take benefit of her own wrong and. thus, prayer has been made that the revision petition may be accepted and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, may be set aside. He has placed reliance upon the judgement in case Raghbir Singh Vs Krishna (1 (1983) D. M. C. 150) and Gulam Jilani Vs. Sahera Bano and others (I (1989) D. M. C. 245 ).

( 7 ) IT would, at this stage,be appropriate to quote the relevant portion of Section 125 of the Code, which reads as follows: Section 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.- (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain- (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimat