( 1. ) THIS is the husbands revision against the granting of the monthly maintenance Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

( 2. ) MST. Anwari Begum (non-applicant) admittedly, was married to Mohd, Jalil Khan (applicant) in 1970. After about two years, the wife came to live with her parents; and she gave birth to a female child Ku. Afroz in May, 1972. The wife filed the petition on 30-3-1973 Under Section 488 of the Cr. P. C. 1898. against the husband claiming maintenance for herself and also for the female child at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month (Rs. 200/- for herself and Rs. 50/- for her child) on the ground that the husband was neglecting and refusing to maintain them despite his having sufficient means as an employee of the State Bank of India and that, she herself was not possessed of any means for her own maintenance and the for of her child. This petition was resisted by the husband on the ground that humid already divorced the wife on 5-8-19t2: and as such, she was not entitled to any maintenance. The paternity of the child was equally denied. The husband further urged that his monthy salary was hardly sufficient for his own maintenance and that of his seven dependents.

( 3. ) THE trial court held that the child Ku, Afroz was the legitimate child, born out of the lawful wedlock of the parties. It was further held that the husband had divorced the wife on 5-8-1972 thus entitling the latter to claim the maintenance. The husband was held to have sufficient means for maintaining the wife and child. The wife herself, however, was held to have no means whatsoever for the said purpose. Accordingly, the learned trial Magistrate, vide his Order dated 9-71980, granted maintenance of Rs. 100/-p. m. to his wife and Rs, 50/to the child, from 30-3-1973 (date of application) to 9-7-80 (the date of Order) and thereafter at the enhanced monthly rates of Rs. 175/and Rs. 75/- respectively. Hence now, the husbands present revision,

( 4. ) THE leaarned counsel for the applicant-husband has urged before me that the learned trial Magistrate should not have passed the Order Under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. 1973, as he had actually done, inasmuch as, the proceedings for grant of maintenance had been initiated long before the promulgation of the new Code. It is urged in this connection that under the provisions of the old Code (Criminal Procedure Code, 1898), divorce disentitled the wife for any claim of maintenance and, therefore, since, the trial Magistrate had held the factum of divorce to be proved, no maintenance could be granted to the wife in view of this divorce. It is also argued that benefit of the definition of "wife" to in clude even divorced women having, however, been not remarried, as given in Explanation to S, 125 (1) of the repealing Code i. e. Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, could not be available to the non-applicant wife, in face of Section 484 (2) of the new Code, relating to "repeal and savings", The learned Counsel for the applicant husband has. however, candidly conceded that he is only challenging the claim of the wife only far maintenance, and that, in the present revision he is not challenging at all, the trial Courts Order regarding the grant of maintenance to the child Ku. Afroz to any extent whatsoever.

( 5. ) THE non-applicant wifes learned Counsel has urged before me that considering the circumstance that the wifes petition having been initiated in March, 1973 Under Section 488 of the old Code and having been decided as late as on 9-7-80 when the old Code had already been repealed by the Code of Criminal procedure of 1973, the wifes petition Under Section 438 of the old Code should be deemed to be converted as a petition Under Section 125 of the new Code and in any case, this was necessary in the ends of social justice so that the indigent wife could avail of the benevolent and liberal provisions under the new Code.

( 6. ) I have considered the arguments on both sides and am fully al