Sat Pal, J.

1. In this case, the respondent Santosh Kumari had filed an applica- tion under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code) against her husband Ravi Kumar, who is the petitioner in this case, claiming maintenance. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot, vide his order dated 12th July, 1990, dismissed the application of Santosh Kumari holding that she had failed to prove any sufficient reasons for residing separately from her husband and as such, she was not entitled to claim maintenance in view of the provisions of Section 125(4) of the Code.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesad order dated 12.7.1990, the respondent-wife filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court. During the pendency of this revision petition, the petition filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide his judgment dated 17.8.1990. The revision petition filed by the wife against the order dated 12.7.1990 of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot, was however allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide his judgment dated 17.9.1991. By this judgment the l