Heard learned counsel for Petitioner and Respondent No.1.

2. It may be noted that Mr. Kishor Ghute Patil, was advocate for respondent No.2 husband. However, on 26-7-2006, he had submitted a note to the Registrar of this Court informing that. as per the directions given by this Court to deposit the arrears of maintenance amount, he had communicated the order to Respondent No.2 but he had not complied with the directions and thereafter, by notice dated 12-9-2003, he had informed Respondent No.2 that he was withdrawing from this petition and he had also returned the brief to Respondent No.2 with a request that he should make arrangement for conducting the case. Notice was served on him. However, inspite of that Respondent No.2 did not make any arrangement for appearance on his behalf. As such none is present for Respondent No.2.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner and Respondent No.2 were married some times in 1984 and out of this wedlock, they have also a son namely Arif. The petitioner and her minor son had filed Criminal Misc. Application No.1281 1986 on 16/12/1986 U/s.125, Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance against Respondent No.2. In that application Respondent No.2 filed a written statement/say on 10-7-1987 pleading that he had already given divorce tot he applicant on 9-12-1986 in writing and communication the said writing to her by Registered Post A.D. on the same day. This fact was denied by the applicant.

After hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that communication of divorce on 9-12-1986 was proved because the applicant had refused to accept the envelope containing the notice about divorce. The learned Magistrate relying upon authority of this High Court in Mahaboobkhan Faizullakhan Vs. Parveenbanu and another, 1988 Maharashtra Law Journal 781, came to the conclusion that on coming into force of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, provisions of Section 125, Cr.P.C. stand repealed in view of Section 7 of the said Act and as before filing of the application U/s.125, Cr.P.C. on 16-12-1986, the husband had already given divorce to the wife, she could not claim maintenance U/s.125, Cr.P.C. but she could claim maintenance for Iddat period under the said Act. With these observations the application came to be rejected. That order was challenged by the present applicant and her minor son in Criminal Revision Application No.24/1990. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by its judgment dated 25-1-1991 partly allowed the Revision Application and granted maintenance tot he child at the rate of Rs.100/ - p.m. However, holding that the applicant was given divorce at least with effect from 10-71987 when written statement/say taking plea of divorce was filed by husband and copy of which was served on her, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge directed the husband to pay maintenance to the applicant at the rate of Rs.200/- from the date of application till 10-71987. Being not satisfied the wife filed the present Writ Petition challenging the observations and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad. According to her, Respondent No.2 had not given divorce to her. Plea taken by him in the written statement cannot be taken as divorce and as he had failed to prove that the divorce was actually given, the marriage still subsist and she is entitled to get maintenance U/s.125, Cr.P.C.

4. Perused the relevant record. 5. Taking into consideration the evidence on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that Respondent No.2 had sent a notice giving divorce tot he wife by registered Post A.D. but that envelope was returned by the postal authority on the ground that the addressee had refused to accept it. According to the learned Sessions Judge, the wife was not expected to know the contents of the envelope as according to the husband he had given divorce on 9-12-1986 by that notice itself. There was no plea nor there was any evidence that the divorce was given in her presence o