( 1 ) THIS criminal petition is filed challenging the order dated 25th March 2006 made in criminal Revision Petition No. 26 of 2004 on the file of V Additional District Judge (Fast track Court), Nandyal, whereunder and whereby the order of granting maintenance in m. C. No. 1 of 2002 dated 07-5-2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First class, Banganapalle was confirmed, modifying the date of payment 'from the date of petition' to that of 'from the date of order'.

( 2 ) THE factual matrix is not in dispute. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a petition under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for grant of maintenance each at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month. The said petition was allowed granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- each of the respondents. However, in respect of second respondent, maintenance was ordered to be paid till her marriage and in respect of third respondent till he attains the age of majority. The said application was treated by the learned District Judge as a petition under section 3 (1) (a) of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

( 3 ) THE only objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein is that since the first respondent herein, admittedly a divorcee, has to seek redressal under the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short referred to 'the 1986 Act' forthe purpose of convenience)and Section 125 Cr. P. C. has no application. He fairly stated that as per the minor respondents 2 and 3 are concerned they can as well maintain the application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. as well as under section 3 (1) (a) of the Act 1986. He relied on a decision in Mst. Bilkis Begum @ Jahanara v. Majid Ali Gazi and another.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing forthe respondents contended that liberty may be given to the wife so as to approach concerned court to claim maintenance in connection with Section 3 (1) (a) of the 1986 Act.

( 5 ) THOUGH the application was filed under section 125 Cr. P. C. the revisional court modified the order treating as one passed under Section 3 (1) (a) of the 1986 Act. This court in a decision in Muneer Hassan Khan v. Fareeda Khatoon and another held as hereunder. "the application seeking maintenance has been filed under Section 125 of the code. Of course, the label under which the petition has been filed is not the criterion and even if a wrong provision has been mentioned in the petition, if the petition could be otherwise maintained in any other provision it is of no consequence and the petition could be treated as having been filed under the relevant provision. Having regard to the finding given by the Court below that the petitioner is a divorcee, it becomes relevant to consider certain provisions of the Act, 1986, the constitutional validity of which has been upheld by the Apex court very recently in Danial Latifi and another v. Union of India, 2001 (2) ALT (Crl.) 327 = 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 787 (SC ). " no doubt, it is not a case of quoting a wrong provision, but it is quoting a separate legislation. On this aspect, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in Mst. Bilkis begum @ Jahanara v. Majid All Gazi and another (1 supra) wherein it was held thus. "so far as the claim of maintenance for the divorced wife is concerned the proceedings under Section 125 cannot be proceeded with. She is entitle to receive her dues according to the 1986 act, and if she has not yet received the same she has to take recourse of the proceedings under that Act and realize the amount in accordance with law. "

( 6 ) IN the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court referred to the case of Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim (JT 1997 (7) SC 104) wherein it was held that a careful reading of the provisions of Section 125 Cr. P. C. and section 3 (1) (b) of the 1986 Act, makes it clear that the two provisions apply and coverdifferent situations and there is no conflict, much less a real one, betwee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document