1. The revision-petitioner is the husband. The respondent his wife, named Gurdev Kaur for herself and for her minor son Sunder Singh claimed maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, from him before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. The learned Magistrate, after taking into consideration the evidence led, held that both the wife and her minor son were not entitled to maintenance. The main reason for refusal which prevailed with the learned Magistrate was the Judgment Ex. D.1 inter partes. That was in proceedings under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights instituted by the husband successfully. In the presence of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife, she obviously had no right to maintenance. This is well settled by a string of precedents. In this connection see Joginder Singh V/s. Dalbir Kaur (1980) 82 Pun LR 665, Smt. Jito V/s. Shri Buta, (1981) 83 Pun LR 325 and Raghbir Singh V/s. Krishna, (1982) 84 Pun LR 768. However, the rule laid down therein though apparently absolute has a qualification. The wife can still claim maintenance in the presence of a decree for restitution of conj