The revision petitioner is the husband and the counter petitioner is his divorced wife. At a time when the marital relationship was subsisting the counter petitioner filed M.C. No. 81 of 1978 for maintenance against the petitioner for herself and her minor child under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Calicut. The Magistrate refused maintenance to the counter petitioner accepting the contention of the petitioner that she is residing separately without justifiable reasons. Maintenance was allowed to the child alone. That order was not challenged by any other proceedings and it has become final.

2. Thereafter alleging desertion by the petitioner the counter petitioner filed O.P. No. 239 of 1980 before the District Judge, Kozhikode for judicial separation under section 10(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. That petition was allowed and judicial separation was ordered. Then the petitioner filed O.P. No. 69 of 1982 before the same court for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(a)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging that they have not resumed cohabitation after the order for judicial separation. In that O.P. the counter petitioner filed I.A. No. 913 of 1984 for interim alimony. That was allowed and interim alimony was granted till the date on which dissolution was ordered. The marriage was dissolved by the order in that O.P.

3. Thereafter the counter petitioner filed M.C. No. 18 of 1984 before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Calicut claiming maintenance from the petitioner in her capacity as divorced wife. The petitioner opposed that claim; but the Magistrate allowed the petition and ordered monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/-. The revision petition has been filed against that order.

4. Various grounds were raised by the revision petitioner's counsel in support of his contention that the order for maintenance passed by the Magistrate cannot be legally sustained. Under explanation (b) to Section 125(1) of the Code, for the purposes of Chapter IX of the Criminal Procedure Code :

"wife includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried."

It is under this extended definition that the counter petitioner has approached the Magistrate, after the order for divorce, claiming maintenance against the petitioner. The main contention of the revision petitioner was that when once the claim of the counter petitioner for maintenance was refused on the ground that she is not justified in having a separate residence, a subsequent claim for maintenance, on whatever ground it is made, cannot be entertained even if the claim comes after divorce. The reasons alleged are (1) the bar under the earlier order disallowing maintenance to her continues even now because even now she is refusing to come and reside along with the petitioner for no valid reason in spite of the earnest efforts made by him to persuade her to come and reside with him and (2) the extended definition of 'wife' under explanation (b) to Section 125(1) is for purposes of the whole of Chapter IX and hence whenever and wherever in that Chapter any rights, liabilities, disqualifications, etc. are provided in favour of or against a 'wife' they must be applicable to 'wife' as defined in the above explanation also. I am sorry that I am not at all convinced of the reason or propriety behind the contentions.

5. Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) is only on inclusive definition. Without that definition a woman who has been divorced by, or who has obtained a divorce from, her husband would not have been entitled to claim maintenance from a person who was her former husband. But for the definition a woman whose marital relationship is subsisting alone would have been entitled to claim maintenance because one could claim as a wife only during the subsistence of a valid marriage. When that relationship is terminated the status as wife goes and the