Basant, J.

Does the expression "maintenance to be made and paid to the wife within the iddat period by her former husband" appearing in Section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' include past maintenance payable to her prior to her divorce? This is the crucial question arising for consideration in this appeal.

2. Fundamental facts are not in dispute. The marriage between the spouses took place on 7-1-2007. There was instant acrimony in the marriage and talak was pronounced on 17-2-2008 by the husband unilaterally. The wife claimed maintenance for the period from 7-1-2007 to 17-2-2008. She claimed such past maintenance at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per mensem. The petition was filed after the divorce on 28-2-2008.

3. The husband is highly qualified. He works as a petroleum Engineer in Nigeria. The wife asserted that the monthly income of the husband at the time of marriage was above Rupees one lakh. At the time when she tendered evidence his income was about Rs.two lakhs per mensem, it was contended.

4. There was the oral evidence of the claimant-wife as PW1 and the evidence of the father (Power of Attorney Holder) of the husband as RW1. Exts.A1 and B1 to B5 and Ext.X1 were marked.

5. The court below directed payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.9,000/-per mensem.

6. The counsel first of all contends that the claim for past maintenance prior to the date of divorce also falls within the sweep of the expression maintenance under Section 3(1) (a) of the Act. The leaned counsel vehemently argues that under Section 3(2) of the Act, inasmuch as past maintenance due prior to the divorce also falls under Section 3(1) (a) of the Act, the claim for such maintenance must be made before the Magistrate. The Family Court under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act has no jurisdiction to consider a claim under Section 3(1) of the Act and consequently the order passed by the Family Court is without jurisdiction, contends the learned counsel.

7. We are afraid, this contention cannot be accepted. The contention does not take into account the circumstances under which the Act was born. In the light of the decision in Mohd.Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum(A.I.R.1985 S.C. 945), the Parliament was obliged to explain and clarify as to what is the amount payable by a husband to his divorced wife on divorce under the customary and personal law applicable to the parties. The Parliament seized the opportunity and enacted the Act to specify what amounts are payable under the customary and personal law on divorce so as to extinguish the liability to pay maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in terms of Section 127 (3)(b).

8. Past maintenance undoubtedly is not an amount payable on divorce. That obligation has nothing to do with the subsequent divorce. A wife in matrimony is entitled to

maintenance from her husband. She can stake a claim under the civil law or under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a woman can never stake the claim for past maintenance. The court has jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C only to direct payment of future maintenance, i.e. maintenance from the date of petition. It is idle in these circumstances to contend that the stipulations in Section 3(1) (a) of the Act to pay maintenance refers maintenance payable prior to the date of divorce.

9. We extract Sections 3(1) and 3(2)below for easy reference.

3. Mahr or other properties of Muslim woman to be given to her at the time of divorce,-(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a divorced woman shall be entitled to,-

(a) a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband;

(b) where she herself maintains the children born to her before or after her divorce, a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to