A. K. SIKRI, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS No. 1 and 2 claiming themselves to be the wife and daughter, respectively, of respondent, filed two applications for maintenance. The respondent contested these applications primarily on the ground that they were not maintainable inasmuch as the respondent had divorced the petitioner No. 1 much prior to filing of these applications. Therefore, instead of moving under section 125 Cr. P. C. , the remedy of the petitioner No. 1 was to take recourse to the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter called Act ). Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, vide common judgment dated 13. 5. 2000, rejected the contention of the respondent and fixed the maintenance of Rs. 275/- per month to petitioner No. 1 with effect from 1. 9. 1994 to 30. 4. 1995 and @ Rs. 400/- per month with effect from 1. 5. 1998 and awarded maintenance to the petitioner No. 2 @ Rs. 225/- with effect from 1. 4. 1995 to 30. 4. 1995 and Rs. 400/- with effect from 1. 5. 1998. However, in the revision petitions, filed by the respondent against the said order, learned Additional sessions Judge reversed the order of the Trial Court, accepted the contention an