Ram Nandan Prasad, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order dated 25-2-2005 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Maintenance Case No. 56(M) of 2003 whereby interim maintenance has been allowed to the opposite party.

2. The opposite party filed the above-mentioned maintenance case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating therein that she was married to the petitioner on 22-4-2000 and she is his legally married wife. She was mentally and physically tortured on the ground of demand of dowry. The petitioner is not ready to live with her as husband-wife and is trying to marry again and as such she has been compelled to reside with her sister at Alamganj, Patna City and she has no means for her maintenance. The petitioner is an Engineer earning Rs. 28.000.00 per. month and as such, prayed for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000.00 per month and also Rs. 40,000.00 as legal expenses.

3. Notice was issued to the petitioner but in spite of service of notice he did not turn up and as such the case was taken up for ex parte hearing and two witnesses were examined. During the pendency of ex parte hearing the petitioner appeared in the case and filed a petition for recall of the order of ex parte hearing stating therein that he has already divorced the opposite party on 7-11-2002 and as such she is not entitled to maintenance.

4. The opposite party thereafter filed an application for interim maintenance denying the claim of the petitioner that she has been divorced and also that she is entitled to maintenance as there is no allegation that she has remarried. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the said petition stating therein that the petition is not maintainable as he has already divorced her on 7-11-2002, she has also own source of income from tuition, the period of Iddat has already expired and he has to maintain his younger brother also.

5. The Court below after hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials on record passed the order holding that the opposite party is entitled to maintenance and allowed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5000.00 per month and Rs. 10,000.00 as legal expenses of litigation which has been impugned in this civil revision.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case u/s. 125, Cr. P.C. for grant of maintenance is not maintainable as the petitioner has divorced the opposite party. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party denied the claim of the petitioner that he has divorced her. Moreover, there is no allegation that she has remarried and as such she is entitled to maintenance as has been directed by the Court below.

7. On consideration of the submissions .made by the counsel for the parties this much is obvious that there is no dispute that the opposite party was married to the petitioner on 22-4-2000. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is an Engineer and is in job. However, the claim of the petitioner is that he has divorced the opposite party on 7-11-2002 which has been confirmed by Imarat-e-Shariya, the period of Iddat has already expired and as such the petition of the opposite party u/s. 125, Cr. P.C. is not maintainable.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission relied upon a decision in the case of Danial Latifi V/s. Union of India, -, wherein the Apex Court considered the provisions of sec. 125, Cr. P.C. and the validity of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Apex Court on consideration of the scope and object of the provisions of sec. 125, Cr. P.C. and Secs. 3 and 4 of the Act, 1986 has held as follows (Para 36) :-

1. A Muslim husband is liable to make reasonable and fair provision for the future of the divorced wife which obviously includes her maintenance as well. Such a reasonable and fair provision extending beyond the iddat period must be made by the husband within t