ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 1's application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'code') having been held to be not maintainable by the learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Bhadrak, she has moved this Court for interference.

( 2 ) FACTS situation is almost undisputed and needs no elaborate reference. Bare essentials are as follows : petitioner No. 1 filed a petition claiming maintenance of Rs. 1,000. 00 per month, i. e. , Rs. 500. 00 for herself, Rs. 250. 00 each for two minor children from the opposite party. According to her, opposite party demanded cash of Rs. 5,000. 00 from her father for acquisition of a tailoring shop. On refusal he forcibly took away the ornaments from her possession along with other valuables, and drove her away from his house along with two minor children after taking her left hand thumb impression on blank papers. Though he was duty bound to maintain her and the children, and she was unable to maintain themselves, opposite party without any reasonable cause refused to do so.

( 3 ) OPPOSITE party resisted the claim taking the stand that the application was not maintainable as he had divorced the applicant-petitioner No. 1 by reciting the word 'talaq' three times on 17-7-1989. A cash of Rs. 5501. 00 was paid to her as mahr money, in addition to Iddat money. Further land measuring 20. 5 decimals was given under custody of petitioner no. 1 on 10-12-1984 for marriage of petitioner no. 2 and for maintenance of petitioner no. 1. He also agreed to pay Rs. 60. 00 for maintenance of petitioner No. 2. Accordingly he prayed for dismissal of the application.

( 4 ) EVIDENCE was led by the parties in support of their respective claims. By the impugned order, learned JMFC treated the application to be one under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, (in short, the 'act' ). He held that on the established facts the applicant was not entitled to an order for maintenance. Learned Magistrate further held that the children are not entitled to maintenance under the Act in view of the provisions contained in Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the view of the court below is erroneous and misconceived in law. Since there is no provision for the minor children in the Act, learned JMFC should have held the application to be maintainable under the Code, so far as the children are concerned. Learned counsel for opposite party on the other hand submitted that the conclusions of the learned trial Magistrate about divorce are irreversible, and therefore, petitioner No. 1 is not entitled to any relief. There being no provision under the Act for minor children beyond certain age, conclusions of learned Magistrate are on terra firma. The contentions need careful consideration. 5a. Provisions contained in Sections 125 to 128 of the Code would have no application, and proceeding at the instance of a divorced wife would not be maintainable, except in cases covered by Section 5 of the Act. Certain provisions of the Act need be referred for resolving the interesting dispute. Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act envisages making of reasonable and fair provision and payment of maintenance to the divorce wife commensurable with the period of Iddat. A contrary view would defeat the purposes for which the legislation is made. Provisions contained in Section 4 cast liability on the relatives or the Wakf Board, as the case may, for payment of maintenance to the divorced woman, if she is not remarried or is unable to maintain herself after the Iddat period. It fortifies the view that the liability to pay maintenance does not extend beyond the period of Iddat. In view of what has been stated in Section 5, if the husband and wife exercised their option in the manner provided, they would be governed by provisions contained in Sections 125 to 128 of the Code, and Section 7 of the Act. Similar view was taken by this Court in Criminal Revision N