This petition is filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the order of dismissal of the Criminal Revision No. 549 of 2001 passed by the Presiding Officer and the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track-IV, Belgaum.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Initially, she had filed an application under Section 3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short, the Ace), with a prayer that she is entitled to recover Rs. 30,000/- from the respondent and also reasonable amount and fair provision and maintenance and also entitled for grant of marriage expenses and Dahej. So, after considering the materials placed on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion in allowing the petition filed by the petiti9ger under Section 3(2) of the Act, directing the respondent to return the Mehar amount of Rs. 551/- and further it was directed to pay a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner during the Iddat and Post-Iddat period and further Rs. 5,000/- was also awarded towards value of articles and other Dahej articles given to her in the marriage.

3. Assailing the said order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class-II Court, Belgaum, in Cri. Misc. Petition No. 247 of 1997, dated 20-9-2001, the petitioner challenged before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track-IV, Belgaum under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. in Cr. R.P. No. 502 of 2001. After hearing both parties, the said Cr. R.P. filed by the petitioner as well as the respondent were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, she has come up with this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. on the ground that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence placed on record. Exs. P. 4 and P. 5 recovery of articles worth Rs. 13,000/- though the petitioner has claimed a considerable compensation, a meager amount has been awarded, which is insufficient payment of maintenance and she is entitled to get the maintenance till her remarriage. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside or quashed.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and perused the records.

5. During the course of the arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is none other than the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Initially she filed a petition for grant of maintenance, which was rejected by the Trial Court. It is the case of the petitioner that initially she filed Cr. P. No. 81 of 1989 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belgaum and another petition under Section 31 before the Family Court but the petition filed before the Family Court came to be dismissed with a direction to file the petition under Section 3(2) of the Act and in that petition she claimed Rs. 81,555/- but the Trial Court without appreciating the evidence placed on record, wrongly came to the conclusion in awarding a meager sum of Rs. 20,551/-. Therefore, the petitioner herein being the wife is entitled to claim reasonable maintenance and it is the duty of the respondent/husband to pay the same. But the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the materials placed on record and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition.

6. In support his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in case of Shamim Ara v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another1, wherein, the Apex Court has held thus:

"Muslim Law - "Talaq" - Plea of previous divorce taken by husband in written statement in proceedings initiated by wife for maintenance - Cannot at all be treated as pronouncement of "Talaq" by husband on/wife on date of filing of written statement in Court followed by delivery of copy thereof to wife - Neither marriage between parties stands dissolved on date of filing of written statemen