1. On 22nd March, 2006, this Court ordered Rule, which was made returnable early.

2. The admitted position, as a background of case, can be narrated as follows:-

[a] Marriage was solemnized on 30th July, 1982.

[b] Agreed amount of .Mehar. is Rs. 5051-00.

[c] According to husband, wife has left husband's house, and it was not a case of neglect or refusal.

[d] No maintenance for the period of Iddat or amount of Mehar was not paid. [e] Wife filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 23 of 1983, under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code which was allowed, granting maintenance of Rs.100/- per month.

[f] This order was confirmed by Revisional Court.

[g] The wife filed proceedings for recovery of maintenance in Misc. Criminal Case No. 23 of 1983. During pendency of this application, the Muslim Women [Protection of Rights on Divorce] Act, 1986, came into force.

[h] Petitioner applied under Section 7 of the Act and wife's recovery proceedings were closed, and this order has attained finality.

[i] Wife filed Regular Civil Suit No. 580 of 1984 for recovery of Mehar, which has been decreed and amount has been recovered.

[j] Wife filed a suit for recovery of her belongings which was decreed and decree is satisfied.

[k] On 20th April, 1987, wife moved application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, being Misc. Criminal Case No. 29 of 2000, which has been rejected, and this order, which has attained finality, has not been challenged. 3. On 17th January, 2002, wife filed an application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women [Protection of Rights on Divorce] Act, 1986, [hereinafter referred t as said Act.], for fair provisions, and this application has been allowed and the Judgment has been maintained in Revisional Court.

4. By present Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as the order of the Sessions Court confirming it.

5. Though the grounds of challenge are manifold, emphasis is laid on Ground Nos.

[e],

[f],

[i] and

[j]. Instead of description, those are quoted ad verbatim as below:- .

[a] .... to [d] .... .[e] Both the courts below ought to have seen that Muslim Women [Protection of Rights on Divorce] Act, 1986, came into force on 19.05.1986 and as such it is applicable to the Muslim women who are divorced by their husbands after coming into force of that Act i.e., after 19.05.1986. The said Act cannot be given retrospective effect in order to make it applicable to the Muslim women who were divorced prior to commencement of the said Act.

[f] Both the courts below failed to appreciate that, the application under the provision of section 3 [2] of Muslim Women [Protection of Rights on divorce] Act, 1986 is maintainable only in case of breach of provisions under section 3 [1] of the said Act. In other words the Muslim woman who is divorced by her husband, will get a right to approach the Court under the provisions of section 3 [2] of the said Act, only in case her husband failed to comply with the provisions under section 3 [1] of the said Act at the time of divorce..

[g] .....

[h] .....

[i] Both the courts below ought to have taken into consideration that the respondent no.2 had approached the Court after 18 years of divorce, and thus on this ground also the application under section 3 of Muslim Women [Protection of Rights on Divorce] Act, 1986, was not tenable.

[j] Both the courts below ought to have seen that the rights given to the divorced Muslim women under the Muslim women [Protection of Rights on Divorce] Act, 1986 are basically of civil nature and as such the provisions of Limitation Act are applicable for the purpose of exercising such civil rights. It is thus clear that after expiry of three years the rights provided under Muslim Women [Protection of Rights on Divorce] Act, 1986, become time barred. It is thus submitted that on this count also the courts below ought to have dismissed the application of the respondent no.2 as time barred. [quoted from page nos. 6, 7