1. Whether a wife, whose marriage stands annulled under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, is the question of law involved in this revision, and the said question is raised by the husband, despite a Division Bench decision of this Court in his own case, that such a lady also will come within the definition of 'wife' under Explanation (b) to Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The dispute between the revision petitioner and his wife came up before this Court in another proceeding, and the decision resolving the legal issue was reported in [2012 (1) KLT 769]. The facts are not in dispute, and the reasonableness or adequacy of the amount of maintenance is also not in dispute. What is involved in this revision is only the question of law, as to whether the respondent herein can claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, as wife defined under the law.

2. The respondent herein filed M.C No.191 of 2003before the Family Court, Kannur, claiming maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner resisted the claim on the contention that the wife has been residing separately without any reason or excuse, and that such a lady, who has left the company of her husband without any justifiable reason, cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

3. The trial court conducted enquiry in the proceedings and heard both sides on the factual aspects. None of the parties adduced any oral or documentary evidence. The trial court passed orders on 28.1.2005 in M.C No.191 of 2003, directing the revision petitioner herein to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs.1000/-per month. On the same day, the trial court passed orders in O.P.431 of 2003, annulling the marriage under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of impotence of the husband. In view of the decree annulling the marriage on the ground of impotence, the husband, in stead of pursuing the proper and regular remedy, approached this Court with Writ Petition (C) No.36823 of 2008 with a prayer to set aside the maintenance order on the ground that such an order is illegal and unenforceable. In the said proceeding, a Division Bench of this Court considered all the factual and legal aspects in detail and settled the dispute, that the respondent herein can claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, as wife, as defined under Explanation (b) to Section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed by this Court.

4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the revision petitioner herein approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court with an application for Special Leave, to challenge the decision of this Court. Leave was declined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the revision petitioner was directed to pursue appropriate legal remedies available otherwise. Accordingly, he filed this revision petition under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, challenging the legality and enforceability of the order passed by the Family Court in the maintenance proceeding.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.36823 of 2008 stands merged in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P (Crl) No. 2944 of 2012, and so, the parties are not bound by the Division Bench decision. Such an argument cannot be accepted because the decision of this Court, made by the Division Bench in the case between the very same parties stands not set aside, or overruled. So long as the said decision of the Division Bench stands not overruled by any subsequent decision or set aside by the Apex Court, the parties are bound by the said decision.

6. Of course, on facts, there is not much dispute. When the marriage stands annulled, the husband cannot have any defence except a possible defence that the wife has her own source of income. There is no such factual situation here. As regards the quantum of mainte