A divorced wife, if unable to maintain herself and not remarried, is entitled to claim maintenance from her ex-husband under Section 125 of the Code.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. The petitioner, who is former husband of the respondent, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) challenging the order dated 8-2-2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) granting an amount of Rs. 200/- per month as interim maintenance, on an application filed by his divorcee wife; and the order dated 30-8-2001 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, confirming the aforesaid order.

2. The sole question involved in this petition is, whether a former wife is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code when the marriage between the parties was dissolved by decree of consent divorce, and at that time it was agreed between the parties that the respondent wife will not claim maintenance in future.

3. In this case, the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 11 -10-1993. Two issues were born out of the said wedlock. Subsequently, relations between the parties became strained and ultimately on their joint application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, a decree of divorce by mutual consent was passed by the learned District Judge on 23-11-1995. In their joint petition for divorce, there was an averment that the respondent-wife would not claim any maintenance from the petitioner-husband at any time or in future under any provisions of law. In her statement before the Court, the respondent wife also stated that she would not claim any maintenance from the petitioner in future. Admittedly, after the mutual divorce, the respondent-wife has not remarried. She is living alone. However, the husband has contracted the second marriage.

4. After the divorce, the respondent wife was not able to maintain herself. In spite of her request, the petitioner had refused to maintain her. Hence, on 2-6-1999, the respondent wife field an application under Section 125 of the Code for maintenance alleging therein that she was the former wife of the petitioner, she did not contract any re-marriage. She was unable to maintain herself, and the petitioner had refused to maintain her.

5. The petitioner contested the aforesaid application on two grounds. Firstly that since the marriage between the parties was dissolved by mutual consent, therefore, in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 125 of the Code, the respondent former wife is not entitled for maintenance as both the spouses were living separately by mutual consent. Moreover, the petitioner is looking after the two children born out of the wedlock between the parties. Secondly that in view of the earlier compromise effected between the parties and the statement made by the wife in the Court that she will not claim maintenance in future from the petitioner, she is estopped from claiming the maintenance.

6. The learned trial Court repelled both the contentions of the petitioner and held that the respondent-former wife was entitled for maintenance and accordingly an amount of Rs. 200/- per month was granted as an interim maintenance vide order dated 8-2-2000. On revision filed by the petitioner, the said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 30-8-2001, Still feeling aggrieved against the award of meagre amount of Rs. 200/- to the respondent former wife, the petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, I do not find any merit in this petition. As far as the facts are concerned, there is no dispute. The marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act. It was also agreed between the parties that the respondent former wife will not claim any maintenance from the petitioner in future but it is also a fact that the respondent former wife did not contr