K.C. Sood, J.—This revision petition arises out of the orders of learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dhramshala, dated 18.12.2003.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy, relevant facts may be noticed:

3. Respondent Kesari Devi (wife for short) was married to petitioner jagdev Singh (husband for short). Wife laid a petition against the husband before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dharamshala, for the grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The maintenance was claimed for herself and her daughter, born out of the wedlock. Wife claimed that she was living separately, due to maltreatment of the husband. Husband admittedly is working as Head Draftsman in the office of Central Water Commission at Delhi and receiving approximately salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month.

4. This petition was resisted by the husband on the grounds: (a) Wife left the Company of the husband along with the daughter. Husband filed a petition at Delhi, which was allowed and restitution of conjugal rights were decreed and, therefore, wife was not entitled to any maintenance; (b) Respondent never refused to maintain the wife; (c) Courts had no territorial jurisdiction to hear the petition.

5. The decree for the restitution was followed by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion on the part of the wife.

6. The learned trial Magistrate by his judgment dated 19.11.2001 allowed the petition and granted maintenance of Rs. 500/- each to the wife and daughter. The maintenance was allowed from the date of filing of the petition.

7. Dis-satisfied, the husband carried a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala.

8. This revision petition was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, by his impugned judgment, on the grounds that the wife withdrew from the society of the husband in the year 1992 and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed against her which was followed by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. Aggrieved wife is in this petition.

9. I have heard Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the wife and Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned counsel for the husband.

10. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, in my view, clearly erred in disallowing the maintenance on the ground that wife failed to join the company of her husband despite a decree of conjugal rights against her. It is no longer res Integra that a wife even after a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion is entitled to maintenance, until she remarries another person. Husband continues to be under statutory obligation to maintain the wife even after passing of such decree. Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code clearly indicates this intention of the Legislature. Section 125 of the Code reads: (a).................................................................................... (b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.

11. A perusal of Explanation (b) clearly shows that for the purpose of grant of maintenance, under Section 125 of the Code, wife includes a woman who has been divorced by or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. The reason is not for to seek the object of Section 125 of the Code is to protect women and children from vagrancy and destitution. The Apex Court in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit, (1999) 7 SCC 675, observed that provision is not to be utilized for defeating the rights conferred by the Legislature on the destitute women, children or parents, who are victims of social environment.

12. A divorced wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her former husband under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code till she remarries. Divorce, as pointed out by the Apex Court in Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (Stnt.) and others, (2000) 3 SCC 180, does not end right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. In