Hon’ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.—List revised.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.

3. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.3.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur.

4. Briefly stated facts are that revisionist-Smt. Shakeela Bano was married with Saleem Uddin (opposite party) on 15.11.1987. A son was born out of wedlock in the year 1988, who expired after 7-8 months. Another child was born, who also died in the year 1989. Revisionist was expelled from her in-law’s house in the stage of pregnancy, which compelled her to file application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 4.11.2000.

5. Husband, in his written statement while admitting the marriage made allegations of adultery against wife and that he divorced on 1.12.1989 by pronouncing triple divorce, consequently, application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. Other defences were also taken. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 28.11.2002 allowed the application and awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- per month towards maintenance from the date of order.

6. Two revisions were filed against the aforesaid order, one by husband challenging the order on the ground that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable and the other one by wife seeking enhancement of the amount of maintenance, that too, from the date of application.

7. Learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that Smt. Shakeela Bano having been divorced by husband, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable. Consequently, revision filed by husband was allowed and the revision filed by wife was dismissed. Against the order dated 29.3.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC No. 1, Hamirpur, writ petition was filed which was later on converted into instant criminal revision.

8. Submission of learned counsel is that factum of divorce was not proved in accordance with the personal law. In any case, even if divorce is assumed, her right to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be denied.

9. It is apparent from the judgment that Saleem Uddin (husband), in his cross-examination before Magistrate has stated that even if earlier divorce is not treated to be legal, he is giving divorce in the presence of lawyers. This has been found to be sufficient compliance by learned revisional Court. Divorce cannot be granted in summary manner as assumed by lower revisional Court.

10. Reference may be made to decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shamim Ara v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, JT 2002 (7) SC 520. Hon’ble Apex Court has quoted, with approval, the observations made by Guwahati High Court in the case of Must. Rukia Khatun v. Abdul Khalique Lasker, (1981) 1 GLR 375. Relevant observation of the Division Bench are quoted below :

“In Rukia Khatun’s case, the division bench stated that the correct law of talaq as ordained by Holy Quran, is (i) that ‘talaq’ must be for a reasonable cause; and (ii) that it must be preceded by an attempt of reconciliation between the husband and the wife by two arbiters, one chosen by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from his. If their attempts fail, ‘talaq’ may be effected. The division bench expressly recorded its dissent from the Calcutta and Bombay view which, in their opinion, did not lay down the correct law.”

11. The pronouncement of triple talaq in the Court during cross-examination, does not appear to be valid mode of divorce.

12. Furthermore, even the divorcee muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Reference may be made to the decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court given on 16.4.2014 in the case of Shamim Bano v. Asraf Khan, 2014 Law Suit (SC) 317. Referring to the case of Danial Latifi and another v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that it would be travesty of justice if the muslim woman is made remediless. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is being quoted below :

“We are disposed to think so as the