N.W. Sambre, J.

Present petition is by wife and daughter seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as their attempt to get maintenance through the proceedings initiated before learned Magistrate has resulted into denial of the same, however, the request for grant of maintenance came to be allowed to the extent of Rs. 3000/- per month for petitioner No. 2 daughter Sayeeda.

2. The petitioner-mother and daughter, both preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, Camp at Ahmedpur, which came to be dismissed.

3. The facts as are necessary for deciding the present writ petition are as under :-

The petitioner No. 1 Rehana got married to respondent Hashmi on 15/05/1996 at Udgir and out of the said wedlock, daughter Sayeeda came to be born.

4. As the respondent-husband doubted the chastity of petitioner No. 1-wife and it is claimed by the petitioner-wife that there was demand of dowry. It is further claimed that as there was threat to kill petitioner No.1-wife by the respondent-husband and tried to burn her by putting her on fire and as she was assaulted on 04/06/1990. It is further claimed that as she is unable to maintain herself, she moved the application before learned Magistrate claiming maintenance.

5. In the application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is claimed that respondent-husband is skilled welder and is earning Rs. 1000/- per day. It is then claimed that appropriate maintenance be paid to the petitioners.

6. The claim was resisted by the respondent-husband by admiring the marriage and birth of daughter. The respondent has come out with the case that divorce by notice is claimed to have been served on the petitioner-wife on 20/02/1999.

7. In support of the claim for maintenance, petitioner No. 1 Rehana examined herself at Exhibit-8, her uncle Chisti Md. Khaja Karoddin Ahmed Ali at Exhibit-29, whereas respondent-husband has examined himself at Exhibit-32 and his father Sayyad Yakub Sayyed Shamshoddin at Exhibit-34.

8. After considering rival claim of the parties and evidence as is brought on record, learned Magistrate noted that the parties to the proceedings are Muslims by religion and as such, in view of provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter shall be referred to 'Divorce Act'), rejected the claim of petitioner No. 1-wife, whereas allowed to the extent of claim of the daughter @ Rs. 300/- per month. Learned Magistrate directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month to petitioner No. 1-wife for the Iddat period i.e. three months and rejected the claim for future maintenance.

9. The revision against the above referred order dated 11/02/2002 being Criminal Revision No. 23 of 2002 came to be dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, by an order 23/09/2003.

10. Heard Mr. Sakolkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Ms. A.N. Ansari, learned Counsel for the respondent.

11. Mr. Sakolkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that even if presuming that Divorce Act is available to the parties, still the Apex Court has already decided the said issue by observing that the muslim woman is entitled for maintenance. He would rely upon the observations made by the Apex Court in the matter of Danial Latifi and another v. Union of India reported in (2001) 7 SCC 740. He would invite my attention to the observations made in paragraphs-34 and 35 of the said judgment, which reads thus :

“34. The learned counsel appearing for the Muslim organisations contended after referring to various passages from the text books which we have adverted to earlier to state that the law is very clear that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance only upto the stage of iddat and not thereafter. What is to be provided by way of Mata is only a benevolent provision to be made in case of divorced Muslim woman who is unable to maintain herself and that too by way of charity