J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant has prayed for the following relief's:

"13 (a). Your Lordships be pleased to admit this petition.

(b). Your Lordships be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order of Ld. 2nd Adnl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Surendranagar Dt. 16-02-2016 in Cr.M.A. No. 267 of 2012 and as confirmed by the Ld. Session Judge, Surendranagar by order Dt. 06-09-2016 in Criminal Revision Application No. 20 of 2016 are bad in law, without jurisdiction and those be quashed and set aside and the order of maintenance of the petitioner wife be restore.

(c). Your Lordships be pleased to grant any other relief/s as may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. It appears from the materials on record that the applicant herein got married to the respondent No. 2 on 15th May 2005. Soon after the marriage, matrimonial disputes cropped up. The respondent No. 2 filed a Hindu Marriage Petition No. 62 of 2009 for divorce. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Anand allowed the Hindu Marriage Petition and passed a decree of divorce thereby dissolving the marriage. The husband i.e. the respondent No. 2 obtained a decree of divorce on the ground that the applicant had deserted him and also on the ground of cruelty. It appears that the appeal filed by the applicant herein was partly allowed. The first Appellate Court did not believe desertion, but affirmed the decree on the ground of mental cruelty.

3. The applicant preferred Second Appeal No. 224 of 2013 before this Court, which came to be dismissed vide the judgment and order dated 24th January 2014.

4. It appears that after the dismissal of the Second Appeal filed by the applicant herein before this Court, the respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the order of maintenance. The learned Magistrate allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 2 and cancelled the order of maintenance passed in favour of the applicant herein.

5. The applicant, being dissatisfied with such order passed by the learned Magistrate, preferred the Criminal Revision Application before the Sessions Court at Surendranagar. The revision application also came to be rejected vide the order dated 6th September 2016.

6. Being dissatisfied, the applicant has come up with this application, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Mr. Kirtidev Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that his client is entitled to receive maintenance from her husband i.e. the respondent No. 2 despite the fact that the marriage has been dissolved pursuant to the decree of divorce obtained by the husband. Mr. Dave submitted that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rohtash Singh vs. Smt. Ramendri [(2000) 3 SCC 180].

8. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Dave prays that there being merit in this application, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below be quashed.

9. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Virendra Baheti, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. Mr. Baheti submitted that the applicant is not entitled to receive maintenance in view of the fact that she treated her husband with cruelty and considering the same, a decree of divorce was granted by the competent Court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which came to be affirmed right upto this Court in the Second Appeal filed by the applicant - wife. He submitted that the term of "wife" under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would include a divorced wife.

10. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Baheti, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 prays that there being no merit in this application, the same be rejected.

11. Having heard the lear