Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, in favour of the petitioner-husband, a divorce decree was granted on the ground of desertion against the respondent wife. The counsel states that the respondent wife being deserter is not entitled to maintenance as per the provisions of section 125(4) Cr.P.C. In support of the above contention, reliance has been placed upon section 125(4) Cr.P.C. Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. reads as under: (4) "No wife shall be entitled to receive an [allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be] 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. "
(2.) The counsel for the petitioner has contended that wife due to acts of omission and commission on her part is dis-entitled to receive maintenance because of her conduct.
(3.) The argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. The controversy raised is no longer res integra. In Rohtash Singh v. Smt Jtamendri & Ors. 2000(1) Apex Court Journal 454 (S.C.) : AIR 2000 SC 952 , considered this aspect and had rejected the contention that a wife divorced on the ground of desertion will not be entitled to maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C., it will be apposite here to extensively quote from the above said judgment:- "4. The principal contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a decree for divorce having been passed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of desertion by the respondent, an order for maintenance could not have been passed in favour of the respondent on account of Sub-section (4) of Section 125, Cr.P.C.;