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 opposi