( 1 ) HEARD Mr. B. P. Munshi, learned Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D. M. Shah, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Ms. B. R. Gajjar, learned A. P. P. , for respondent No. 2 - State.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a Mahomedan by religion and is the wife of respondent No. 1. The petitioner filed Misc. Criminal Appln. No. 1098 of 1990 in the Court of learned C. J. M. , Jamnagar under Sec. 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") claiming maintenance from the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the respondent No. 1 has neglected her and has refused to maintain her despite having sufficient means. That vide order, dated 16-3-1993 the learned C. J. M. , Jamnagar awarded amount of Rs. 350. 00 p. m. , to the petitioner by way of maintenance payable by the respondent No. 1 w. e. f. 24-7-1990. The Court has also awarded costs of Rs. 1001- to be paid by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1 carried the matter to the Sessions Court at Jamnagar by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 46 of 1993. That by order dated 16-6-1997 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamnagar allowed the revision application and set aside the above stated order of maintenance passed by the learned C. J. M. Jamnagar. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order of the learned Sessions judge, Jamnagar the petitioner has filed the present revision application.

( 4 ) MR. Munshi, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has taken me through the impugned judgment and orders which are produced at running pages 1 to 22 of the file and has urged that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamnagar has committed error of law by holding that respondent No. 1 having given "talaq" to the petitioner, the petitioner is not eligible to claim maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code. It is also submitted by Mr. Munshi that the learned Addl. Sessions judge has disregarded the rule settled by this Court in the matter of Arab Ahmedia ahdulla v. Arab Bail Mohmuna Saiyadhhai and Ors. , reported in AIR 1988 Guj. 141 : 1988 (1) GLR 452 and has held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner-wife was not entitled to claim maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code, which is contrary to the settled proposition of law and thereby the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the orders of the learned c. J. M. , Jamnagar, dated 16-3-1993 in the proceedings of Misc. Criminal Application no. 1098 of 1990 is required to be restored. Mr. D. M. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 has placed reliance on the observations made by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Para 11 of the impugned judgment to contend that no sooner there is a declaration of divorce before the Court, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code. That the divorced wife would be entitled to only maintenance and other benefits as provided under the provisions of Sec. 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Muslim Women Act, 1986" ). Mr. Shah has attempted to support the impugned judgment by referring to the provisions of muslim Women Act, 1986.

( 5 ) IT may be noted that the Muslim Women Act, 1986 does not take away the rights which the Muslim woman was having either under the Personal Law or under the general law, i. e. . Secs. 125 to 128 of the Code. In other words, the Muslim woman. even after the "talaq" could claim maintenance from her former husband either under the provisions of Secs. 125 to 128 of Code, or under Sec. 3 (2) of the Muslim women Act, 1986, if she is otherwise entitled to claim the maintenance under the law. That. the provisions of Secs. 5 of Muslim Women Act, 1986 provide option to the parties, to be governed either under Secs. 125 to 128 of the Code or under the provisions of special Statute, the Muslim Women Act, 1986 and as such the application filed by a divorced