1. This is an application under Ss. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). It is directed against the order dated 29-1-1997 passed in Case No. 2/96/Tr. No. 857/97 by Shri A. K. Thakur, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur dismissing the claim of the petitioner filed under S. 3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) for her dower debt as per the claim for maintenance for herself and her child.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she is a divorced wife of opposite party No. 1. She had filed the aforesaid petition for a direction to opposite party No. 1 to pay the amount of her dower debt and maintenance to herself and also for a direction to the State Bank of India, Hazaribag Branch (opposite party No. 2) to allow the petitioner to take out her ornaments from the locker No. 128 held jointly by the petitioner and opposite party No. 1. The petitioner was married to the opposite party No. 1 on 17-6-1973 according to the customs and rites under Mohammadan Law applicable to the Sunny Sect. At the time of Nikah the dower debt was fixed at Rs. 1,00,000.00 . Soon after her marriage the petitioner found opposite party No. 1 not faithful to her and not prepared to discharge his matrimonial obligations. In the meantime, she gave birth to a son in the year 1974. Before this she was sent to her Maikey where she was compelled to remain for 9 long years. All of sudden the petitioner received a letter from opposite party No. 1 in August, 1983 stating therein that he had divorced her. This letter was dated 1-7-1983. Apart from the dower debt of Rs. 1,00,000.00 fixed at the time of the marriage the petitioner was given ornaments worth more than Rs. 1,00,000.00 by her parents at the time of her marriage which were now kept in the locker No. 128 of State Bank of India, Hazaribag Branch. This locker was in the joint name of the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 and its keys were kept by opposite party No. 1. On divorce the petitioner was entitled for reasonable provisions for her lifetime maintenance which should have been paid to her in one lump sum within three months of the Divorce. In spite of repeated request opposite party No. 1 did not fulfil any of his, legal obligations the petitioner sent a pleaders notice to opposite party No. 1 which was replied by a letter dated 21-9-1995 in which opposite party No. 1 made wild allegations against the petitioner. Opposite party No. 1 is holding a respectable post and drawing the salary of about Rs. 10,000.00 per month. The petitioner preferred the claim under the relevant provisions of the Act to which opposite party No. 1 filed a rejoinder and contested her claim on the ground that the same was barred by limitation in view of S. 292 of the Mullas Mohammadan Law inasmuch as the divorce had already taken place in 1983. The learned Court below without considering the merits of the claim of the petitioner dismissed her case by the impugned order only on the point of limitation as prescribed under S. 292 of the Mohammadan Law.

3. . The petitioner has contended that this order of the learned Court below is bad in law. The learned Court below should not have dismissed her claim on the ground that the same was barred under the provisions of law as contained in S. 292 of the Mullas Mohammadan Law. The said letter does not apply to a petition filed under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act since the same cannot be treated to be a suit to be disposed of by the civil Court. Under the provisions of the Act the petitioner is required to be disposed of by a Magistrate and, therefore, on this ground also the impugned order is bad on the point of law. On these grounds amongst others it has been contended that the impugned order be quashed and the case be remanded back to the Court below for its disposal in accordance with law.

4. In the show cause petition filed by opposite party No. 1 it has been contended that the Act in ques