1. Common questions of law arises for consideration in these revisions, were heard analogously and shall stand disposed of by this common order.

2. The imperative facts required for judging the correctness of the impugned order are as under:-

2.1 Non-applicant No.1-Smt. Manju Dwivedi was married to applicant on 28.4.1996 as per Hindu rights and customs and out of their wedlock, non-applicant No. 2-Naman born on 28.07.1997 at Bilaspur.

2.2 It is the case of the non-applicant No.1 that after the marriage when she became pregnant. applicant started harassing her on account of demand of dowry and other means, by which she was forced to leave her matrimonial house and then she came to her parental house along with her minor son Naman and, thereafter the applicant did not take care of her and neglected to maintain them, leading to filing of the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 18.01.2001 before the Family Court, Bilaspur-.

2.3 The present applicant filed his reply to the said application and admitted the relationship of husband and wife between him & non-applicant No. 1 and also admitted that the non-applicant No. 2 is his son; and further pleaded that the non-applicant No. 1 is living in her parental house without valid and sufficient reason and as such she is able to maintain herself and is not entitled for maintenance; and lastly pleaded that by order dated 19.02.2001, decree for restitution of conjugal lights has been granted in his favour by the competent civil court directing the non-applicant No.1 to live with the applicant.

2.4 The Family Court recorded evidence of the parties and by order dated 29.10.2003 granted the said application finding inter alia that the non-applicant Nos. 1 & 2 have sufficient and reasonable cause to live separately from the applicant, and non-applicants are unable to maintain themselves and granted monthly allowance of maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- each to the non-applicants from the date of order.

2.5 It is apposite to mention here that the order dated 29.10.2003 granting monthly allowance for maintenance was not challenged by the applicant herein and thus, this order of maintenance has attained finality.

2.6 Thereafter, the present applicant filed an application for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth the Act, 1955) before the jurisdictional civil court, which was registered as Hindu Marriage Case No. 40-A/2005 titled as Satish Chandra Dwivedi V. Manju Dwivedi. The said Court by its order dated 25.01.2006 granted decree for divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1955 in favour of applicant dissolving the marriage between them. Thereafter, on 5.10.2009, non-applicant Nos. 1 & 2 filed an application under Section 127 of the Code, which is registered as M.J.C. No.279/2009 for increase in the allowance for monthly maintenance on the ground of change in the circumstances.

2.7 The Family Court, by its order dated 22.07.2010 partly granted the above application and increased the amount of monthly maintenance from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/- to each of the non-applicants from the date of order.

2.8 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order increasing the amount of maintenance. Criminal Revision No. 497/2010 has been filed by the applicant for setting aside that order.

2.9 Applicant/husband also filed another application under Section 127 of the Code stating inter alia that decree for divorce has been granted by the jurisdictional civil Court on 25.01.2006 and, therefore, order granting maintenance on 29.10.2003 be set aside, which was replied by the non-applicant No.1/Iwife stating that against the order granting decree for divorce, an appeal has been preferred in the High Court of M.P. registered as C.A. No. 228/2007 which is pending consideration before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It was further replied by the non-applicant No. 1 that order granting maintenance dated 29.10.2003 has attained finality as the applicant has not challenged the same, and therefore, application for cancelling the order dated 29.10.2003 deserves to be rejected.

2.10 The Family Court by its order dated 15.12.2010 rejected the application filed by the applicant holding that the divorced wife is also entitled for maintenance till her remarriage. Against this order, Criminal Revision No. 19/2011 has been preferred by the applicant/husband challenging the same. This is how, both the revisions came up for hearing before this Court.

3. Smt. Meena Shastri, learned counsel for the applicant in both the revisions, while criticizing and castigating the impugned order would submit that order of tbe jurisdictional civil Court granting decree of divorce particularly on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 is a decision of competent civil Court within the meaning of Section 127 (2) of the Code, therefore, the order granting maintenance deserves to be annulled. Alternatively, she would further submit that even otherwise the order increasing the allowance of monthly maintenance has no basis as change in the circumstances has not been clearly established by the non-applicant, and therefore, on the aforesaid two grounds the impugned order passed by the family Court deserves to be set aside.

4. Per contra, Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the non-applicants would vehemently submit that bare decree for divorce granted by the jurisdictional civil Court would not ipso facto extinguish the order granting maintenance by the family Court and the applicant/husband is required to plead and establish by leading appropriate evidence the fact of desertion in proceeding under Section 127(2) of the Code. He would further submit that increase in the allowance of monthly maintenance to the extent of Rs. 3,000/- can not be said to be shockingly high requiring interference by this Court looking to cost of living, price index and the basic need of the non-applicants specially schooling and other expenses of non-applicant No. 2-Naman Dwivedi and as such both the revisions deserve to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the patties and considered the rival submissions made therein and also perused the record of both the Court below with utmost circumspection.

6. The following two questions fall for consideration in this revision are as under:-

(i) Whether the dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce on the ground of desertion by the civil Court is decision within the meaning of Section 127(2) of the Code, which empowers the family Court to cancel or vary the monthly allowance for maintenance granted to the non-applicant/wife

(ii) Whether the family Court was justified in increasing the allowance for maintenance from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- in exercise of power under Section 127 (1) of the Code

Answer to question No. 1

7. It is apposite to firstly advert to the relevant provisions in sub-section (4) of Section 125 and in sub-section (2) of Section of the Code, they runs thus : -

Section 125(4): No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this Section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

Section 127(2): Where it appears to the Magistrate that in consequence of any decision of a competent civil court any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be, vary the same accordingly.

8. According to the explanation attached to sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code for the purposes of Chapter IX (Sections 125 to 128) of the Code wife includes a women who has been divorced by or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried.

9. In Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and others, AIR 1978 SC 1807 (1), their Lordship of Supreme Court, while highlighting the object of Section 125 of the Code, held as under:-

9. This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform, interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to the selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternative which advances the cause-the cause of the derelicts.

10. Thereafter, in Rohtash Singh v. Smt. Ramendri and others, AIR 2000 SC 952 , their Lordships of Supreme Court has held that by virtue of explanation attached to sub-section 1 of Section 125 Cr.P.C, a woman divorced by her husband on account of a decree passed by the Family Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, continues to enjoy the status of a wife for the limited purpose of claiming maintenance from her ex-husband and held as under:-

9A, Claim for maintenance under the first part of Section 125, Cr.P.C. is based on the subsistence of marriage while claim for maintenance of a divorced wife if based on the foundation provided by Explanation (b) to sub-Section (1) of Section 125, Cr.P.C. If the divorced wife is unable to maintain herself and if she has not remarried, she will be entitled to Maintenance Allowance. The Calcutta High Court had an occasion to consider an identical situation where the husband had obtained divorce on the ground of desertion by wife but she was held entitled to Maintenance Allowance as a divorced wife under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and the fact that she had deserted her husband and on that basis a decree for divorce was passed against her was not treated as a bar to her claim for maintenance as a divorced wife. (See: Sukumar Dhibar v. Smt. Anjali Dasi, 1983 Cri LJ 36 (Cal)). The Allahabad High Court also, in the instant case, has taken a similar view. We approve these decisions as they represent the correct legal position.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that once a decree for divorce was passed against the respondent and marital relations between the petitioner and the respondent came to an end, the mutual rights, duties and obligations should also come to an end. He pleaded that in this situation, the obligation of the petitioner to maintain a woman with whom all relations came to an end should also be treated to have come to an end. This plea, as we have already indicated above, cannot be accepted as a woman has two distinct rights for maintenance. As a wife, she is entitled to maintenance unless she suffers from any of the disabilities indicated in Section 125(4). In another capacity, namely, as a divorced woman,"

11. The word decision appearing in Section 127(2) of the Code would mean the determination of question or controversy and not the ground or reason which weigh with the court in arriving at such decision. The question or controversy that was raised in the divorce was whether the marriage between applicant and non-applicant No.1 should stand dissolved and ultimately it was dissolved in favour of applicant. Thus, the ground of desertion was not the decision itself but reasons for such decision.

12. This apart, let the matter be examined from another angle. Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act inter alia provides that final judgment of the competent judge in matrimonial jurisdiction is conclusive proof of legal character which confers or takes away, accrued or ceased at the time, declared in the judgment for that purpose. Section 41 states as under:-

41. Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction,- A final judgment, order or decree of a competent Court, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence, of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant.

Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof-

that any legal character, which it confers accrued at the time when such judgment, order or decree came into operation;

that any legal character, to which it declares any such person to be entitled, accrued to that person at the time when such judgment, [order or decree] declares it to have accrued to that person;

that any legal character which it takes away from any such person ceased at the time from which such judgment, [order or decree] declared that it had ceased or should cease;

and that anything to which it declares any person to be so entitled was the property of that person at the time from which such judgment, [order or decree] declares that it had been or should be his property.

13. Thus, by virtue of above-stated provisions, the judgment and decree passed by civil court in the divorce suit granting decree of divorce is a conclusive proof of the fact that non-applicant No.1 has been divested of her legal status of a wife; but not of the reasons for which she has been so divested. In these circumstances, the fact of desertion was required to be proved independently in the application for cancellation of maintenance and in absence of such proof, the application under Section 127(2) of the Code cannot be allowed.

14. In Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal, (AIR 1978 SC 1807 ) (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court has clearly held that wifes claim for maintenance by virtue of explanation (b) of Section 125 of the Code continues unless - parties make adjustments- and come to terms quantum or right of maintenance and mere divorce does not end the right to maintenance and concluded in paragraph 22 as under:-

We make the position clear that mere divorce does not end the right to maintenance.

15. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court has also been followed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Mangilal v. Gitabal, 1988 Cri LJ 1591.

16. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid analysis and in view of the statutory provisions following the decisions of the Supreme Court, it is held that bare decree for divorce dissolving the marriage on account of desertion as provided in Section 13(1) (ia) of the Act, 1988 does not Ipso facto entitle the husband to seek for cancellation of the order of maintenance as the decree dissolving marriage only proves that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant No.1 is dissolved and it does not prove the ground of desertion and even divorced wife is entitled for maintenance till her re-marriage, and the applicant has not led any evidence to prove this ground before the Family Court in the said proceeding, therefore, the Family Court is absolutely justified in rejecting the application filed by the applicant under Section 127(2) of the Code, the question No. 1 is answered accordingly.

17. At this stage, Smt. Meena Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that there is no neglect or refusal on the part of the husband to maintain her as decree for restitution of conjugal rights granted in her favour.

18. This submissions deserves to be rejected as the decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights was granted on 19.02.2001 by the competent civil court and, thereafter, only on 29.10.2003 order was passed in favour of non-applicant No. 1 granting allowance for maintenance and that order was never questioned by the present applicant by filing revision etc. and, as such, that order granting maintenance has attained finality.

Answer to question No. 2

19. The Family Court has enhanced the amount of monthly allowance from Rs.1,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- looking to the cost of living, price index and basic needs of the human being, which in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be said to be shockingly high side requiring interference by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction, thus the question No.2 is answered accordingly.

20. Concludingly, both the revision petitions deserve to be and are hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed.