The main legal point established is that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 does not override the entitlement of a divorced Muslim wife to maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P.C. and that divorce is not a ground for cancellation of maintenance under Section 127, Cr. P.C.

The petitioner Musstt. Arab Chani Begum hereinafter referred as the petitioner, filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C., before the Addl. C.J.M., Kamrup, Guwahati being 17m/83 stating inter alia that she was married to the respondent Azizur Rahman, hereinafter referred as respondent, as per Muslim Sariat and thereafter they lived as husband and wife. Out of the said wedlock two sons were born of her but one of the sons died. The respondent has got another wife and after 4/5 years of the marriage he started ill-treating the petitioner and ultimately drove her out from the house along with her minor son. The petitioner has got no means of livelihood and accordingly she prayed for grant of maintenance to herself and her minor son. Vide order dated 3-1-86 learned SDJM, Rangia granted maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month for herself and another sum of Rs. 100/- per month for the minor child.

2. The respondent preferred a revision petition against the said order of maintenance but the revision was dismissed. The respondent filed another revision, being Criminal Revision No. 333/87 before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court and vide order dated 5-1-93 this Court directed both the parties to appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati for reconciliation. It was further provided that if the reconciliation fails the respondent husband was to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. The reconciliation proceeding, however failed and the respondent continued to pay the maintenance. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for enhancement of the maintenance and the amount of maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 250/- per month to the wife and Rs. 200/- per month for the child.

3. The respondent filed Misc. Case No. 205/97 under Section 127, Cr. P.C. on 17-7-97 praying for cancellation of the order of maintenance on the ground that in the meantime the respondent has divorced the petitioner some time in the year 1995 and hence under the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, for short, the Act, the petitioner wife is not entitled to any maintenance. The petitioner filed written objection and both the parties led evidence. Thereafter vide the impugned order dated 20-5-98 passed in Misc. Case No. 205/97 the Principal Judge, Family Court cancelled the maintenance granted to the petitioner wife only; so far the minor son is concerned the respondent was directed to pay till the minor attains the majority. The present revision is directed against the said order of cancellation of maintenance to the petitioner wife.

4. I have heard Mr. A. S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Saukat Ali, senior advocate for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that in view of the limited scope of interference in this revision he is not challenging the factum of divorce alleged by the respondent husband but even if it is accepted that the petitioner has been divorced in the meantime, the order of maintenance cannot be set aside or cancelled as the Act does not deprive a divorced Muslim wife from getting maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P.C. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a recent decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shaikh Babbu v. Sayeda Masarat Begum reported in 1999 Cri LJ 4822 wherein it was held that there is no inconsistency between the provisions of the Act and provisions of Section 125, Cr. P.C. and a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P.C. The provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act are in addition to the claims available to them under Section 125, Cr. P.C. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has followed the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Arab Ahmedia Abdulla v. Arab Bail Mohmuna Saiyadbhani, AIR 1988 Guj 141.

6. So far the present case is concerned there is no dispute at the Bar that the order of maintenance