The main question in this revision petition arising out of a proceeding under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a fairly interesting question though a short question. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has held that the petition for maintenance was filed by the first respondent, the wife, after the petitioner divorced her. Still, the Magistrate has held that, since the personal law of the parties, the Mahomedan law, allows maintenance for the wife for the iddat period (3 months and 10 days after divorce), the wife is entitled to maintenance for that period. This conclusion of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate appears to be erroneous, in view of the very language of section 488 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and more so, in view of the decision of this Court in Areekkal Abdurahiman Musaliyar v. Neliyaparambath Ayissu1, where Govinda Menon J., following the decision of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in Ahmad Giri v. Mst. Begha2, has held that the woman must be a wife at the time of filing the application under section 488 of the Code. The learned Judge has pointed out that, under the personal law, she might be entitled to maintenance for the period of iddat,