( 1 ) IN this revision judgment and order dated 4. 7. 1994 passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Before in Criminal Revision No. 86 of 1990 has been challenged.

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel has submitted that even if the revisionist divorced the opposite party No. 2 his wife, learned Sessions Judge held that seeking maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P. C. was maintainable. He has submitted that the said plea of divorce was taken by the revisionist at the initial stage before the learned Magistrate, who held that the case was not maintainable under Section 125, Cr. P. C. since the complainant is a divorced lady and she is entitled to get relief only under Sections 3 and 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Divorce) Act, 1986. He has submitted that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the fact of divorce will have to be proved by the revisionist and sent the matter on remand is not based on proper appreciation of the facts and points of law involved in this case. He has submitted further that the divorce being an admitted fact need not be proved. He has referred petition-complaint of the respondent filed before the learned Magistrate in thi