Hon’ble Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.—This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :

(i) By means of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, the judgment and order dated 13.7.2007, passed by the Apar Civl Judge (Junior Division), Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 18, District Pratapgarh, in Criminal Case No. 227 of 2005; In re : Kishwar Jehan and others v. Rafiquddin and the judgement and order dated 2.9.2008, passed by the Apar Satra Nayayadheesh, Court No. 3, Pratapgarh, passed in Criminal Revision No. 216 of 2007; In ref ; Rafiquddin v. Kishwar Jehan and others, so far as it relates to award of maintenance to the opposite party No. 1 is concerned, may kindly be quashed.

(ii) My means of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the learned Courts below to decide the case and revision in accordance with law.

(iii) Any other writ, order of direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in order to grant an appropriate relief to the petitioner be also issued.

(iv) Court of the writ petition be awarded to the petitioner.

2. The facts in brief for deciding this petition are that opposite party No. 1 Kishwar Jehan moved an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to ‘Cr.P.C.’) for grant of maintenance for herself and her two children born out of the wedlock of petitioner Rafiquddin and Kishwar Jehan (O.P. No. 1). Both children were minor at the time of presentation of petition under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.”). On 23.8.2001 this petition was filed before Additional Civil Judge (junior Division)/J.M. Pratapgarh. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 13.7.2007 allowed the petition fixing maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month for opposite party No. 1 Kishwar Jehan and Rs. 500/- per month each to both minor children till they attain majority. The order passed by the Magistrate was challenged in a Criminal Revision before Sessions Judge having Criminal Revision No. 216 of 2007 but the Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the order dated 13.7.2007 passed by the Magistrate vide its order dated 2.9.2008. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge in revision, this petition has been filed.

3. The orders have been assailed mainly on the grounds that in view of provisions contained in Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 (For short ‘MWP Act’) the divorced muslim woman would not be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after expiry of period of Iddat. The second ground for challenge is that initially the application has been moved by opposite party No. 1 for maintenance of her two minor children and not for herself but she manipulated the application and inserted her name also.

4. So far entitlement of the respondent No. 1 for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan, 2010 (1) CCSC 15 (SC). On the basis of it the counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that though,there is a provision for grant of maintenance under the MWP Act but the divorced muslim wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. He also relied upon another judgment of the Supreme Court in Danial Latifi and another v. Union of India, AIR 2001 (SC) 3958 and contended that in Imran Khan’s case (Supra) this case has been relied upon by the Apex Court.

5. To decide this petition relevant provisions of the statutes are to be looked into. Therefore, the relevant provisions necessary for deciding this petition contained in Sections 125 and 127(3)(b) Cr.P.C., Section 3, 4 and 5 of MWP Act, and Sections 7 and 20 of Family Court Act, 1984 (for short ‘FC Act) are extracted herein below :

Section 125 Cr. P.C

“125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.—

(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses