( 1 ) CRI. P. Nos. 2891 of 1995, 66, 67 of 1996 and 68 of 1996 are directed against the common order dated 19-8-1995 passed by the additional judicial magistrate first class, kundapur in m. c. nos. 223 of 1991, 193 of 1993, 199 of 1992 and 227 of 1994 respectively.

( 2 ) CRI. P. No. 499 of 1996 is directed against the order dated 28-9- 1994 passed by the iii additional civil judge and chief judicial magis trate, Mysore in cri. Misc. No. 103 of 1989 and the order dated 20-9- 1995 passed by the ii additional district and sessions judge, Mysore in cri. R. p. No. 119 of 1994 while cri. P. No. 1286 of 1995 is directed against the order dated 12-6-1995 passed by the additional munsiff and judicial magistrate first class, kundapur in m. c. No. 56 of 1994.

( 3 ) WHILE cri. P. Nos. 2891 of 1995, 66, 67 and 68 of 1996 and 1286 of 1995 are filed by the husband challenging the dismissal of his applications filed under sections 3 and 7 of the muslim women (protection of rights on divorce) Act, 1986 ("the act", for short), cri. P. No. 499 of 1996 is filed by the wife assailing the order of the chief judicial magistrate and ii additional district and sessions judge, mysore, who have allowed the maintenance under sections 3 and 4 of the act and dismissing the maintenance petition filed under Section 125 of the cr. P. c. though the facts in cri. P. Nos. 1286 of 1995 and 499 of 1996 differ from the other, common question of law is involved in all these petitions. They are therefore taken up together for disposal by the consent of the learned counsels on both sides, heard and disposed of by this common order.

( 4 ) IN cri. P. Nos. 2891 of 1995, 66, 67 and 68 of 1996 the husband, petitioner here in suffered an order of maintenance which was granted in favour of the respondent in m. c. No. 28 of 1983 on the file of the judicial magistrate first class, kundapur. The order was passed on 22-11-1986 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- p. m. to the 1st petitioner- wife, Rs. 250/- p. m. to the 2nd petitioner. Aggrieved by the said Order, respondent therein (the present petitioner) filed cr. R. p. No. 161 of 1986 on the file of the district and sessions judge, mangalore, who in his order dated 27-3-1987 confirmed the order of the magistrate, but reduced the rate of maintenance to Rs. 300/- p. m. to the 1st petitioner and Rs. 150/- p. m. to the 2nd petitioner. This order has become final. The wife and her child thereafter filed several recovery maintenance petitions before the magistrate. The petitioner herein filed an application under sections 5 and 7 of the act objecting for enforcement of the order on the ground that the magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain maintenance petition after coming into force of the act 1986. However, he has admitted that he divorced his wife on 30-7-1989. The learned magistrate relying upon the judgment of this court in abdul khader v razia begum, dismissed the said application and held that the recovery proceedings initiated by the wife and son are maintainable.

( 5 ) IN cri. P. No. 1286 of 1995 the respondents who are the wife and minor son of the petitioner here in presented a petition under Section 125 of the cr. P. c. for maintenance on the grounds alleged in the petition. Upon service of notice, the respondent-husband, petitioner herein filed objections contending that the 1st petitioner in m. c. case is a divorced wife and is not entitled for any maintenance under the code. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable. The learned magistrate dismissed the objections filed by the respondent holding that the petition filed under Section 125 of the cr. P. c. is maintainable. In the course of his Order, learned magistrate has opined that under the Provisions of the Act, the divorced muslim wife is entitled to claim fair and reasonable Provisions of maintenance within the iddat period and also dahaj articles given by her relatives and friends at the time of marriage including the mehr amou