As per case facts, the petitioner-wife challenged a revisional order setting aside her maintenance, while the respondent-husband challenged an order for salary deduction. The parties were married and had a ... son, later reaching a compromise to live separately with a settlement and a customary divorce document. The wife subsequently sought maintenance for their son, identifying herself as divorced. A later maintenance petition by the wife was initially dismissed, then granted by the trial court, but subsequently set aside by the revisional court due to mutual consent separation. The question arose whether a wife is entitled to maintenance if she has previously agreed to live separately by mutual consent and accepted a settlement, even if the marriage was not formally dissolved, and if such an agreement bars future maintenance claims. Finally, the High Court determined that the wife's conduct and admissions indicated mutual separation, disentitling her to maintenance. However, to ensure substantial justice and prevent destitution, the court directed a one-time settlement payment and released previously deposited funds to the wife. Both petitions were dismissed.