( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 21. 12. 2001 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge-cum-Additional Family court, Hyderabad, in M. C. No. 134 of 2000.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner is the respondent in the maintenance case. The respondent herein filed M. C. No. 134 of 2000 under Section 125 of the Code of criminal Procedure (for short the Code ) mentioning inter alia in the petition that her marriage with the respondent was celebrated on 17. 8. 1999 and that later the relationship inter. se between them was strained because of the harassment meted out to her by the respondent and his parents for non-compliance of the demand for additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and that on 15. 5. 2000 she was beaten and sent out of the house and since then she has been residing in her parents house. It is further averred that the respondent has been working as an Electrician and getting an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month and having had means, he refused to maintain her who is unable to maintain herself. That petition is resisted by the husband by filing a counter mentioning inter alia that he pronounced Talak on 9. 10. 2000 and gave divorce to the petitioner and that a Talaknama was also prepared and the same was communicated to the petitioner and to her father through registered post with acknowledgment dated 10. 10. 2000. It is his further case that petitioner being a divorcee is not entitled to any maintenance and that he is earning only Rs. 30/- per day, as he is working under an Electrician as a worker.

( 3 ) THE learned Judge of the Family Court formulated three points for his determination as under: (1) Whether the respondent pronounced talaq to the petitioner and gave divorce to her? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for maintenance? (3) If so, to what extent?

( 4 ) AT the time of enquiry, two witnesses were examined on the side of the petitioner including herself and no documents were marked. The respondent examined himself as RW. 1 besides getting Ex. R1 to ex. RS marked.

( 5 ) THE Court below on point No. 1 after having heard either side and considering the evidence on record held that the respondent pronounced talaq and gave divorce to the petitioner. However, on point no. 2 he was of the view that the petitioner was entitled to maintenance even after the iddat period, if the respondent failed to make any arrangements. Accordingly, he allowed the petition and directed the respondent to pay maintenance to the petitioner @ Rs. 450a per month from the date of petition i. e. , 4. 12. 2000. As aforesaid, the respondent in the maintenance case is assailing the said order in this revision case.

( 6 ) SRI C. Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, contends that a divorced Muslim wife is not entitled to any maintenance in view of the provisions contained in Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short the Act ). It is therefore, his contention further that having held that the talaq was pronounced by the revision petitioner validly against his wife, the maintenance ought not to have been granted @ Rs. 450/- per month to the wife by the court below.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand contends that the provisions of the Act, 1986 are beneficial in favour of the divorced wives and, therefore, the Act shall have to be construed accordingly. The learned Counsel further contends that the divorced Muslim woman still can elect to maintain an application under Section 125 of the Code.

( 8 ) THE marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent was celebrated on 17. 8. 1999 and it was not in dispute. The court below on evidence found that the revision petitioner pronounced talaq on 10. 10. 2000 and gave divorce to his wife, the respondent herein. That finding of the Court below has not been assailed by the respondent-wife in any independent proceedings. Perhaps she is rest co