( 1 ) THIS revision application under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (code for short hereinafter), the petitioner-original applicant, wife, has questioned the legality and validity of the composits order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, at mehsana, on 30-10-1985, in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 163 of 1984 and 74 of 1985. The resume of the material fact giving rise to the present revision, may be, shortly stated at this stage so as to appreciate the merits of the present revision and challenge against it. The petitioner is the original applicant-wife, who initiated legal battle by filing a Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 1982 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Patan, under Sec. 125 of the Code for her maintenance, against the respondent No. 1, Rameshkumar Ratilal Patani, who is the Original opponent-husband. They arc hereinafter referred to as "husband" and "wife" for the sake of convenience and brevity.

( 2 ) THE marriaee of spouses took place, on 29-5-1975, according to the hindu rites, at Patan. The wife thereafter went to her husbands house at Mount Abu, where her husband was serving as an Officer at that time. On account of disharmony and dissatisfaction between the spouses, the wife went to the place of her parents. The husband instituted a petition for divorce against the wife under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in District court, at Pali. in Rajasthan. The wife Hansaben resorted to the provisions of sec. 125 by filing aforesaid application for her maintenance alleging that she is entitled to maintenance as she is neglected and refused maintenance by her husband. The husband resisted the same application. On perusal of the facts and circumstances and evidence, the learned trial Magistrate was pleased to fix maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1251- per month by passing an order, on 27- 5-1983. There is no dispute about the fact that High Court of Rajasthan in a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Acc had also fixed an interim alimony at the rate of Rs. 125. 00 per month and had directed the husband to pay the same to the wife. The wife thereafter was constrained to file an application bearing no. 103 of 1983 for the enforcement of the maintenance order passed in her favour in Criminal Misc. Application No. 42 of 1982. It was filed, on 14-12- 1983, under Sec. 125 (3) of the Code In which she has contended that her husband failed to comply with the order of maintenance and she claimed an amount of rs. 750/- by way of arrears of maintsnance and Rs. 60. 00 by way of cost of the maintenance application as awarded by the trial Magistrate. Thus in all she claimed rs. 810/- under Sec- 125 (3) of the Code from her husband. After hearing both the parties the learned trial Magistrate was pleased to pass an order that opponent has to pay the maintsnance amount as per the order passed under Sec. 125 of the Code, which reads as follows :"opponent has to pay the maintenance amount as per the order passed under Sec. 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. Sd/- judicial magistrate first Class patan"being aggreived by the said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, patan, under Sec. 125 (3) of the Code. The original opponent husband preferred a Criminal Revision Application No. 163 of 1984 in the Sessions Court at mehsana. Later on he also challenged the maintenance order passed in Criminal misc. Application No. 42 of 1982 by filing a Criminal Revision Application No. 74 of 1985. The learned Additional Sessions Judge disposed of the aforesaid two criminal Revision Applications filed by the respondent husband by passing a composite order, on 30-10-1985. As per the final order the learned Additional sessions Judge at Mehsana allowed both the revision applications. He clarified the order of the learned trial Magistrate in Criminal Misc. Application No. 42 of 1982 stating that applicant-wife is entitled to claim maintenance