*Order.-The respondent herein filed a petition for maintenance under section 125 (1) of the new Code of Criminal Procedure claiming to be the wife of the petitioner. She was divorced on 2nd February, 1974.The new Code of Criminal Procedure came into force on 1st April, 1974. Explanation (b) to section 125 (1) Criminal Procedure Code reads: "wife" includes a women who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried." The respondent having been divorced prior to the coming into force of new Code,

* 14th August, 1975. the petitioner contends that she is not entitled to any maintenance. Sri R.V. Subha Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner urges that the words ‘a women who has been divorced or has obtained a divorce’ refer only to a woman who has been divorced or who obtained a divorce subsequent to the passing of the Act and not to a woman who was divorced or obtained a divorce prior to the coming into force of the new Code. Sri Sk. Mohamood Ali, the learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that the plain meaning of the words used in the explanation cannot be restricted so as to make them applicable only to divorcees subsequent to the Act.

2. The short question that arises for decision in this revision is whether a husband is liable to pay maintenance under section 125 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, if such wife was divorced prior to the coming into force of the new Code and did not remarry by the time she filed the petition for maintenance. The matter has not been covered by any authority so far and it is of considerable general importance. I deem it expedient that the question is decided by a Division Bench. The papers shall, therefore, be placed before the Honourable the Chief Justice for posting the matter before a Division Bench.

Pursuant to the above order of reference the case came on for final hearing before the Division Bench.

R.V. Subba Rao and R. Prasad, for Petitioner.

Shaik Mohammed Ali and Rajendra Kumar Jain, for Respondent No. 1.

The Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

The Judgment of the Bench was delivered by

Gangadhara Rao, J.-This revision case is referred to a Bench by our learned brother Madhusudan Rao, J., on the ground that it involves a question of considerable importance and is bare of authority.

4. The question for our consideration is whether a woman who has been divorced before the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the new Code) came into force, is entitled to claim maintenance under section 125 of the said Code. The respondent, Mumtaz Khatoon, was divorced by her husband, Raza Khan, on 2nd February, 1974. The new Code came into force on 1st April, 1974. She filed a petition for maintenance under section 125 (1) of the new Code on 6th May, 1974 before the Additional Judicial First Glass Magistrate, Kurnool. The husband took a preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable, since he had divorced his wife before the new Code came into operation and section 125 (1) of the new Code was not retrospective in operation. The learned Magistrate upheld his objection and dismissed that petition. Against that order the wife filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 20 of 1974 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool. He allowed it holding that section 125 of the new Code was retrospective in operation and directed the Magistrate to dispose of the petition on merits. Questioning the validity of that order the husband has filed this revision in this Court.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that section 125 of the new Code is prospective and not retrospective in operation and it applies only to a woman who has been divorced by her husband after the new Code came into force on 1st April, 1974 but not a woman who has been divorced before that date. It is urged that under the old Code a divorced woman had no such right and, therefore, section 125 of the new Code is only prospective in operatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document