1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Applicant impugns order dated 17.1.1997 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Criminal Revision Petition No.196 of 1995. She seeks quashing of the said order whereby and whereunder maintenance order rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Misc.Application No.258 of 1993 in her favour was set aside.

3. Indisputably, applicant was married to respondent on 27.10.1991. Their marriage was performed in accordance with customs and tenets of Mohammedan law. Out of the marriage, the applicant gave birth to a minor daughter, viz., Akbari, who was original applicant No.2 before the learned Judicial Magistrate. She filed proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance allowance of Rs.500/- p.m. for herself and Rs.300/- p.m. for her minor daughter.

4. The applicant alleged that she was ill-treated by the respondent in the matrimonial home. He used to make unlawful demand for money from time to time. She was subjected to matrimonial cruelty and, therefore, on 5th September 1993, she lodged a complaint against the respondent, his mother and brother for offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent neglected and refused to maintain her. He performed second marriage. She is unable to maintain herself. The respondent, on the other hand, has sufficient means to pay maintenance allowance being a Contractor and also Editor of a local newspaper. Consequently, she filed the application for separate maintenance allowance.

5. By filing his written statement (Exh.18), the respondent denied truth into the averments made in the application. He asserted that he never demanded any amount from father of the applicant nor ill-treated her during the period of consortium. He contended that he does not possess sufficient means to provide separate maintenance allowance. He further asserted that since behaviour of the applicant was improper, he has given divorce to her on 4th September 1993 as per the tenets of Personal Law and hence, she is not entitled to seek separate maintenance allowance. He asserted that the divorce was given in presence of two witnesses. Therefore, she was no more his wife and cannot claim maintenance allowance under provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. The parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of the rival contentions. On merits, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the applicant proved that she was unable to maintain herself and that the respondent had refused to maintain her. The learned Magistrate further held that the respondent has sufficient means to pay separate maintenance allowance to the applicant and the minor daughter. The learned Magistrate disbelieved the evidence regarding lawful divorce given by the respondent as alleged by him. Consequently, the learned Magistrate awarded maintenance allowance to the applicant and the minor daughter at rate of Rs.200/- (Rs.Two hundred) p.m. and Rs.100/- (Rs.One hundred) p.m., respectively from date of the application.

7. Feeling aggrieved, respondent preferred revision petition (Cri.Rev.P.No.196 of 1995) whereas, the applicant and her minor daughter preferred counter revision petition (Cri.Rev.P.No.16 of 1996). The respondent sought reversal of the findings of the learned Magistrate in all respect. The applicant sought reversal of the findings as regards quantum of the maintenance allowance.

8. The learned Sessions Judge heard both the revision petition together. The learned Sessions Judge held that the applicant was lawfully divorced by the respondent in presence of Kazi and two witnesses on 4.9.1993. The learned Sessions Judge relied upon Talaqnama produced by the respondent and held that the applicant cannot claim maintenance allowance under provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. At the same time, the learned Sessions Judge held that quantum of maintenance allowance grant