Hari Nath Tilhari, J.—Heard Sri Pramod holding brief for Sri Ashok R. Kalyanashetty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. This petition arises from the order dated 31.8.1996 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bijapur, rejecting the Petitioner's application for enhancement of maintenance taking the view that in view of provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1956 and in particular Section 3 thereof, a Muslim woman is not entitled for an order of maintenance after the period of Idat. The Court observes that in the application the Petitioner has described herself as Mahaboobbi, w/o. Ibrahimsab Chavegav, since divorced d/o. Rajesab Tasewale of Jorapur-path, Bijapur. He opined that when it is admitted that she is a divorced wife, she has no right to maintenance beyond the period of Idat and more so, the provisions of Sections 125 to 128 Code of Criminal Procedure will not apply. The Petitioner has come up in revision from this order of the Court below.

3. It has been contended before me that it was the duty of the learned Civil Judge to have applied its mind firstly to the definition of expression "divorced woman". and unless it is established that the wom