A.L. Vaidya, J.
1. The present respondent preferred a petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. against the present petitioner which was accepted and the trial Magistrate directed the present petitioner to pay Rs. 400/- per month as maintenance to Smt. Sita Devi.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that Smt. Sita Devi preferred a petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. against Mr. Rakesh @ Keshu on the allegations that she was married to Mr. Keshu in accordance with the Hindu rites and after marriage, she was ill-treated, given beatings and was not provided even the bare necessities of life, like food and clothing. According to her, she was made to sign some paper without being told of its contents and later on she was informed that her signatures were obtained on a divorce deed and as she never consented to divorce, she continued to be the legally wedded wife of Mr. Rakesh, who has refused and neglected to maintain her, without any sufficient cause. She also alleged in her petition that she was unable to maintain her whereas according to her, Rakesh was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month.
3. The present petitioner contested the petition. He admitted the marriage with Smt. Sita Devi. However, it was pleaded that the marriage was dissolved on 4.8.1986 by mutual divorce as per the custom prevalent in the area and as a result thereof, Smt. Sita Devi left the matrimonial house. According to husband, Sita Devi used to misbehave with him and his parents and there was no possibility of any patch up and, therefore, a Panchayat was convened by the petitioner and the parents of Sita Devi where divorce deed Ex. R1 was executed and Rs. 1,300/ - was paid to Smt. Sita Devi as full and final settlement for her life. It was also pleaded by the husband that she has contracted the second marriage.
4. The trial Magistrate, after recording evidence on record, passed the order as referred to above. This order has been assailed in the present revision petition on various grounds.
5. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard and the entire record has been scrutinised.
6. The trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that parties were validly "divorced vide Ex.R-1, the divorce deed. It was rightly observed by the trial Magistrate that the fact as to whether parties validly divorced each other or not, was of little importance for the purpose of deciding this petition, since a divorced wife was also entitled to maintenance.
7. Regarding her second marriage, the evidence examined on behalf of the husband has been rightly rejected by the trial Magistrate, especially when no legally competent evidence has been examined in this behalf. The sole point to be gone into in the present petition pertains to the proposition whether a divorcee, as per Ex. R-l was entitled to maintenance from her husband.
8. It has been very forcefully contended on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Khanna that the present respondent Smt. Sita Devi, on the basis of Section 127(3)(c), Cr.P.C. was not entitled to maintenance granted by the trial Magistrate. According to learned Counsel, at the time ^f divorce, Smt. Sita Devi has surrendered voluntarily her right to maintenance.
9. In order to appreciate the aforesaid submissions. Section 127(3)(c) of Code of Criminal Procedure is re-produced hereunder :
"127(3) : Where any order has been made under Section 125 in favour of a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband, the Magistrate shall, if he is satisfied that-
(c) the woman has obtained a divorce from her husband and that she had voluntarily surrendered her rights to maintenance after her divorce, cancel the order from the date thereof."
10. Section 127 deals with the alteration of maintenance allowance already granted under Section 125, Cr.P.C. on the happening of certain events referred in the section. The present case is not alteration of the allowance. However, the principle laid down therein would be a guiding factor to dispose of the aforesaid proposition.
11. According to learned Counsel, if one goes through Ex. R-l, the divorce deed, it would mean that the lady has voluntarily surrendered her rights to maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., as has been done in the present case.
12. Ex. R-l nowhere recorded that the lady has voluntarily surrendered her rights to maintenance after the divorce. According to learned Counsel, there is no specific averment in this particular behalf in Ex. R-l, but the entire document, if taken note of, amounted to the same.
13. There is no doubt that in Ex. R-l, it has been scribed that Sita Devi will have no right over Rakesh. This sentence is being interpreted that Sita Devi has voluntarily surrendered her rights to maintenance. I think, such an interpretation of this sentence, which can be interpreted after going through the sentence, which follows it. It has been referred in Ex. R-l that Sita Devi since today shall have no right over Rakesh and both of them shall have liberty to re-marry according to their wishes. Thus, not to have any right over Rakesh only meant that Rakesh as well as this lady were at liberty to re-marry. Insofar as surrendering of rights to maintenance is concerned, there is neither any specific nor implied condition referred in Ex. R-l.
14. It has also been contended that in Ex. R-l, the lady was paid Rs. 1,300/- as full and final settlement of future maintenance. Again, this interpretation also is not available. It has been mentioned in Ex. R-l that Rakesh had given Rs. 1,300/ - to Sita Devi which amount was given to her for effecting divorce. The amount paid to Sita Devi has been referred to be the amount for effecting the divorce and not an amount, as full and final settlement of the rights to maintenance, which Sita Devi would enjoy even after the divorce till she re-married. In this view of the matter also, the submission put forth on behalf of the petitioner, does not hold good.
15. Last but not the least, it has been contended tha Rs. 400/- per month awarded in favour of the lady was a little on the higher side. I think, this amount, keeping in view the present price line, cannot be said to be on the higher side as the price hike has always been on the increase for the last so many years.
16. No other point has been stressed.
17. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order under reference and accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed and the order passed by the trial Magistrate is maintained.
18. The order staying the execution of the impugned judgment passed on 20.11.1991 stands vacated.