This criminal revision case is filed by the wife and children of the respondent-husband against the order dated 06.07.1999 of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati in Criminal Revision Petition No.35 of 1999 which was preferred against the order dated 03.03.1999 in M.C.No.7 of 1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpad.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioners filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.500/- each. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent-husband and their marriage took place about five years prior to the filing of the application. Petitioners 2 and 3 born out of the above said wedlock. Apart from gold ornaments, Rs.10,000/- was also paid to the respondent-husband towards his clothing etc., at the time of marriage. After the marriage, the first petitioner and respondent-husband lived happily for a period of four years during which period petitioners 2 and 3 were born. It is alleged that thereafter, the respondent- husband ill-treated the first petitioner and drove the petitioners away from his house and the petitioners are living in the house of the first petitioner's parents. According to the first petitioner, the respondent-husband is said to have Acres 10.00 of wetland with electric motor and Acres 15.00 of dry land from which he is getting a net income of rupees more than one lakh per year. It is also further alleged that the respondent-husband is a mechanic earning Rs.5000/- per month and that he has six houses in Pathakalicherla village from which he is getting a rent of Rs.3000/- per month and that he is constructing three more houses in Kothakalicherla village.

3. In the counter, the respondent-husband admitted the relationship of the parties but he denied about snatching away of the gold ornaments from the first petitioner and stated that he never harassed her. He put the blame on the first petitioner for not living together. The respondent -husband further denied of having a single cent of landed property and claimed to be an agricultural coolie and made a specific denial that he is a mechanic and he do not own any house.

4. Before the learned Magistrate on behalf of the petitioners PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.P1 was marked. On behalf of the respondent-husband RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.D1 was marked.

5. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate granted maintenance to all the petitioners at the rate of Rs.500/- each per month. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-husband filed Crl.R.P.No.35 of 1999 before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati. The respondent-husband took a stand that the first petitioner is a divorced wife, therefore, she cannot invoke Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and she is covered only by Section 3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"). The learned Additional Sessions Judge took a view that the muslim divorced women cannot straight away claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. without exercising her option to be governed by Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and that the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is not sustainable and hence set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision is filed by the petitioners (wife and children of the respondent-husband).

6. Mr. G. Allabakash, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would contend that the first petitioner is not a divorced wife but she is only a deserted wife since there is no proper pronouncement of talak by the respondent- husband and therefore, she is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

7. Per contra, Mr. Noushad Ali, learned counsel appearing for the resp