This revision petition challenges a direction under Section 125 Cr.P.C issued by the Family Court to the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- and Rs.750/-per mensem respectively to his divorced wife and child.

2. The fundamental facts are not disputed. The marriage is admitted. The divorce under Ext.B1 order of the Family Court is also admitted. That divorce was granted on the ground of desertion by the wife is also not disputed. After the divorce, the divorced wife claimed maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C as she continues to be a deemed wife under explanation (b) to Section 125 Cr.P.C.

3. The petitioner attempted to resist the claim for maintenance on various grounds. It was contended that a woman who has suffered an order of divorce on account of contumacious matrimonial conduct on her part which led to the passing of the order of divorce is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125. It was also contended that in any view of the matter, under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C, the claimant/divorced wife is not entitled to claim maintenance. Of course contentions were raised that the claimant wife is not unable to maintain herself and that the petitioner/husband is not having sufficient means. The quantum of maintenance claimed was also dubbed as excessive.

4. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant/wife examined herself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 and P2. The petitioner was not available for examination as at the relevant time, he was not in India and was at some place abroad. His father and power of attorney was examined as CPW1. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on his side.

5. The learnedJudge of the Family Court on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the divorced wife is entitled to claim maintenance notwithstanding the fact that the divorce was on the ground that she had deserted her husband. The learned Judge further came to the conclusion that Section 125(4) Cr.P.C can have no application as the matrimonial tie is dissolved. It was further held that there is nothing to show that the claimant/wife is not unable to maintain herself and the materials available pointed to the truth of her assertion on that aspect. The contention of the husband that he does not have sufficient means was rejected on the basis of the evidence of PW1 and on the basis of his own admitted stand that he is continuing to reside abroad for a period exceeding one year. The learned Judge took the view that it would be puerile to assume that the petitioner was residing abroad without any employment there. It is, in these circumstances, that the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order directing payment of maintenance.

6. Thepetitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the ground? The learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard in detail. The learned counsel for the petitioner advances various contentions to assail the impugned order.

7. First of all it is contended that the fault of the wife had led to the dissolution of the marriage and such a wife cannot be permitted to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C after the divorce.

8. I am unable to accept this contention at all. Courts have repeatedly held that the divorced wife who for the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C continues to be a deemed wife as per explanation (b) to Section 125 Cr.P.C has no obligations, which a woman in current matrimony has. It is unnecessary to advert to various precedents on the point. To my mind the extreme fact situation is seen considered and decided in Valsarajan v. Saraswathy [2003(2) KLT 548]. That was a case where the wife was refused maintenance on the ground that she was living in adultery. Later she suffered an order of divorce on the very same ground. After divorce, she renewed her claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. A learned Judge of this Court Justice N. Krishnan Nair in the said decision held that her claim as a divorced wife cannot be