Hon’ble Surendra Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.

The husband Manoj Kumar Gupta, who is revisionist, has filed this revision petition in this Court, impleading his wife Smt. Kamlesh Kumari as opposite party No. 1 and II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda as opposite party No. 2, against the order dated 27.9.1993 passed by the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda in Case No. 243/IX/1990, Smt. Kamlesh Kumari v. Manoj Kumar Gupta, under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Banda, District Banda, by which recovery warrant for the interim maintenance amount remaining unpaid was directed to be issued against the husband and 16.10.1993 was fixed for further orders in the matter.

2. It appears that the wife was awarded interim maintenance since 18.8.1989 at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the husband was directed to pay the amount of maintenance to his wife. The amount of maintenance became due from 18.8.1989 to 31.7.1992, hence the wife moved an application dated 31.7.1992 before the Court below under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. with the prayer that a recovery warrant for Rs. 14,195/- be issued against the husband. The husband filed objections on 23.9.1993 against the said application in the Court below saying that the said application was not maintainable because the amount of maintenance only up to the period of one year could be recovered and recovery warrant could not be issued for recovery of maintenance for a period exceeding one year. The husband also took plea that his suit for decree of restitution of conjugal rights in the Court at Amarawati, the State of Maharshtra, was decreed long back and by virtue of the said decree, the wife was directed to live with her husband and to perform conjugal rights and duties with her husband but the wife did not obey the decree without any sufficient reason and the wife had deserted him without any reasonable and sufficient cause. The husband inter alia took the plea by way of filing objections that he ultimately filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was allowed by the competent Court and the decree of divorce was passed on 17.6.1986 dissolving the marriage. On these grounds, the husband claimed that he was not liable to pay any interim maintenance to his wife as she had ceased to his wife. He had deposited Rs. 4,800/- as interim maintenance for a period of one year and he prayed for cancelling the recovery warrant issued for recovery of remaining sum. The wife in the lower Court moved another application stating therein that the objections by the husband on the wrong grounds were filed and the case of maintenance is still pending against the husband and the order dated 18.8.1989 awarding interim maintenance was in existence and is still in existence. The husband challenged the order of interim maintenance by way of filing Criminal Revision No. 121 of 1990 in the revisional Court, which was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banda vide judgment and order dated 23.5.1992. The husband in the Court below clearly admitted that the Sessions Judge neither stayed the operation of the order by which interim maintenance was allowed to the wife nor the lower Court proceedings were stayed. It is evident from the impugned order itself that the husband deposited a sum of Rs. 4,800/- which was due for a period of one year but he did not deposit the remaining unpaid amount of maintenance just on the ground that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the Court at Amarawati (Maharastra) was passed against his wife, which was not obeyed by the wife.

3. The main submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist husband is that by virtue of provisions of Section 125(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 if the husband failed without sufficient cause to comply with the order of th