Hon’ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—The following two cardinal questions fall for consideration in this revision, which has been preferred against the order dated 3.6.2008 passed by the Family Court, Gorakhpur in case No. 288 of 2003 (Smt. Anees Fatima v. Shahid Jamal) under Section 125, Cr.P.C., whereby at the time of allowing the application 58-B for recalling ex parte order dated 29.5.2008, interim maintenance @ Rs. 2000/- p.m. from the date of order has been granted in addition to imposing the cost of Rs.1000/-:

(i) Whether a divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance from her former husband under Section 125, of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’)?

(ii) Whether interim maintenance can be granted under the proviso to Section 126, Cr.P.C. at the time of recalling the ex parte order in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C.?

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts emerging from the record leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for granting maintenance was moved on 27.6.2003 by Smt. Anees Fatima (respondent No. 2 herein) against the revisionist Shahid Jamal Ansari impleading him as opposite party. It was alleged in that application that she is legally wedded wife of opposite party, who has turned her out from his house and since she is unable to maintain herself, hence she is entitled to get maintenance from him. On the basis of that application, case No. 288 of 2003 was registered in Family Court, Gorakhpur. The revisionist filed his written statement, in which it was alleged that he had divorced the applicant on 1.6.2003 and hence the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for granting maintenance is not legally maintainable. It was also alleged by the revisionist that he had given written information about talak to the applicant by registered post on 2.6.2003 and had sent a money order of Rs. 14,000/- on that very day, which consisted of Rs.3000/- as the expenses for iddat period and Rs. 11000/- of the mehr, but she refused to accept the money-order. It appears from the record that after taking the evidence of the applicant in case No. 288 of 2003, evidence of the opposite party was taken and statement of one witness was recorded on 10.3.2008 as D.W. 1. Thereafter, several dates were given to the opposite party to produce the rest witnesses and ultimately 29.5.2008 was fixed for remaining evidence, but on that date the opposite party became absent and hence, his evidence was closed and 3.6.2008 was fixed for judgment. After passing that order, the opposite party moved an application bearing paper No. 58-B on the same day to recall that order. That application was allowed by the impugned order, but as mentioned in para 1 above, the Family Court in addition to imposing Rs.1000/- as cost has granted interim maintenance also in favour of the applicant @ Rs. 2000/- p.m. from the date of order. Hence, this revision.

3. I have heard Sri A. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri G. S. Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

4. It was vehemently contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the application moved by the applicant Smt. Anees Fatima for granting maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is not legally maintainable, as she was divorced by the revisionist prior to the filing of that application and hence the interim maintenance could not be granted in this case at the time of allowing the application to recall the order dated 29.5.2008. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the applicant had moved an application in case No. 288 of 2003 for granting interim maintenance, which was rejected vide order dated 27.9.2005, against which the applicant has filed time-barred criminal revision in High Court and hence on this ground also, the Court below could not grant interim maintenance at the time of passing