Shree Chandrashekhar,J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 20.07.2016 passed in Maintenance Case No. 11 of 2015 by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to his wife and Rs. 3000/- per month to his minor son as maintenance for them.
(2.) Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that O.P No. 2, the wife of the petitioner, took divorce forcibly and therefore she is not entitled for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.
(3.) Referring to the evidences which were led by the petitioner in the proceeding of Maintenance Case No. 11 of 2015, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was O.P No. 2 who was at fault and therefore she is not entitled for maintenance from the petitioner, particularly, after divorce.;