A wife is entitled to claim maintenance allowance even after a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed against her.

( 1 ) SMT. Jaya Wati-Opposite Party No. 1 who is admittedly the wife of the revisionist filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. which was registered as Case No. 353/11 of 1985. This application was allowed on 13. 11. 1987 by 1st Judicial Magistrate, Meerut and Smt. Jaya Wati was granted Rs. 250/- per month as maintenance allowance.

( 2 ) IN the year 1986 the revisionist fild an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act against Smt. Jaya Wati for restitution of conjugal rights. This application was registered as petition No. 596 of 1986 and was decided by VIth Additional Civil Judge, Meerut on 25. 2. 1989. The petition was allowed and Smt. Jaya Wati was directed to live with revisionist and to perform her marital obligations. Aggrieved by this judgment and order Smt. Jaya Wati filed Civil Appeal no. 264 of 1989 which was dismissed on 9. 9. 1993 by VIIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut.

( 3 ) ON 4. 12. 1992 Smt. Jaya Wati filed an application under Section 127 (3) Cr. P. C. in the Family court, Meerut for the recovery of Rs. 19,750/- as arrear of maintenance allowance. The revisionist filed an objection against this application stating that since his suit for restitution of conjugal rights has been decreed, Smt. Jaya Wati is not entitled for maintenance allowance. Learned Judge Family Court placed reliance upon the case of Sardar Surjeet Singh v. Smt. Rajendra Kaur [ (1989), Allahabad Criminal Ruling, 575] and dismissed the objection of the revisionist vide his order dated 12. 9. 1994. The lower Court was of the opinion that inspite of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, Smt. Jaya Wati was entitled to claim maintenance allowance. On behalf of the revisionist the case of Smt. Mahtab Begum v. Ansar Ahmad (A. W. C. 398,1986) was cited. According to this ruling, the wife is not entitled for maintenance allowance after decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed against her. Learned judge Family Court was of the opinion that since this judgment was delivered subsequent to the judgment delivered in the case of Smt. Mahtab Begum, hence this judgment is binding upon it. The result was that the objection of the revisionist was dismissed. Aggrieved by this judgment, husband has come to this Court in revision.

( 4 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and have perused the records. It has been argued on behalf of the revisionist that the Trial Court was not justified in ignoring the law laid-down in A. W. C. 1986 in preference to law laid - down in 1989 Allahabad Criminal Ruling, 575; Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdewan Dubey and Ors. (A. I. R. 1962, S. C. 83) and Avyaswami Gounder and Ors. v. Munnuswamy Gounder and Ors. (A. I. R. 1984, S. C. 1789) have been relied upon. In the first ruling it was held that, when a Bench of the High Court gives a decision on a question of law, it should, in general be followed by other Benches unless they have reasons to differ from it, in which case the proper course to adopt would be to refer the question for the decision of a Full bench.

( 5 ) LAW, will be bereft of all its utility if it should be thrown into a state of uncertainty by reason of conflicting decisions, and it is, therefore, desirable that in case of difference of opinion, the question should be authoritatively settled. It sometimes happens that an earlier decision given by a Bench is not brought to the notice of a Bench hearing the same question, and a contrary decision is given without reference to the earlier decision. When two such conflicting decisions are placed before a later Bench, the correct procedure to follow in such a case would be for the bench hearing the case to refer the matter to a Full Bench in view of the conflicting authorities without taking upon itself to decide whether it should follow the one Bench decision or the other.

( 6 ) IN the second ruling it was held that, where a Single Judge does not agree with earlier decision of Single Judge of same High Co