Oral Judgment:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned advocates for the parties, the writ petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. Both these writ petitions arise out of order passed by the Jt. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhusawal, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 372 of 2003, decided on 05.10.2005, whereby the learned Magistrate held that Shabanabi who is petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No. 650 of 2009, is a divorced wife of respondent Shaikh Sadiq therein, and as such was not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.; whereas he held that petitioner No.2 Danish and petitioner No.2 Rahil were entitled to maintenance of Rs. 700/- p.m. As against said decision Shabana and her two minor sons filed Revision Application No. 343 of 2005 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, who decided the Revision on 18.04.2009, held that original applicant Shabanabi was not entitled to any maintenance, but her sons Danish and Rahil were entitled to maintenance of Rs. 1000/- p.m. instead of Rs. 700/- p.m.

3. Criminal Writ Petition No. 650 of 2009 is filed by Shabanabi and her two minor sons being aggrieved by refusal to grant maintenance to Shabanabi; whereas Criminal Writ Petition No. 469 of 2009 is filed by Shaikh Sadiq, the husband of Shabanabi and father of Danish and Rahil, challenging the enhancement in the amount of maintenance by the Additional Sessions Judge, from Rs. 700/- p.m. to Rs. 1000/-p.m. to each of applicants Danish and Rahil.

4. Brief facts giving rise to filing of these writ petitions can be stated as under:-

Admittedly, Shaikh Sadiq married Shabana on 25.10.2000. On 27.02.2001 original applicant Danish was born out of said wedlock. After birth of original applicant Danish, on 02.11.2002 Shaikh Sadiq gave divorce to Shabana. Then they re-married and applicant No.3 Rahil was born on 03.08.2003. Thereafter, Shabana filed application bearing Criminal Misc. Application No. 372 of 2003 on behalf of herself and her two sons under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. stating that she was ill-treate; there was illegal demand of money and she was subjected to cruelty. Shaikh Sadiq remarried with Rehenabi and under the circumstances, she claimed the maintenance for herself and her two minor sons.

5. Shaikh Sadiq appeared and filed his say at Exh. 9 and denied allegation regarding ill-treatment or demand of money. According to him, on 18.08.2003 he had given divorce to the applicant Shabana in presence of Kazi and two witnesses at Chalisgaon. He further stated that earlier there was attempts for reconciliation. Compromise had taken place on 08.10.2001 at the behest of National Shishagar Jamat. Shaikh Sadiq had also moved application to Jalgaon Zilla Muslim Maniyar Biradari for compromise on 15.10.2001, but Shabana and her father did not remain present before the Biradari, so Talaq was given.

6. The learned Magistrate held that since divorce was proved, Shabana was not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Her remedy is said to be under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. He refused to award maintenance to Shabana, but awarded maintenance of Rs.700/- to each son. As against the said judgment and order, Shabana and the children filed Revision Application bearing No. 343 of 2005 in the Sessions Court. Same came to be heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, who refused to grant maintenance to Shabana holding that she was divorcee and was not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. However, he was pleased to enhance the maintenance to both the children from Rs. 700/- p.m. to Rs. 1000/-p.m. from the date of application. No revision was filed by Shaikh Sadiq against the order passed by the Magistrate, but these two writ petitions are filed by both sides being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, in Criminal Revision Application No. 343 of 2005, as stated ea