( 1 ) ALL THESE matters arising out of the proceedings initiated by Muslim wives against their (former) husbands for grant of maintenance allowance or recovery of the amount already awarded, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Cr. P. C. '), by the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, have been placed before us for resolution of following questions :- (I) Whether the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, (for short, 'the Act of 1986'), can be given retrospective effect so as to cover the claim for maintenance instituted by a divorced Muslim woman under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. prior to coming into of the Act of 1986? (ii) Whether a Muslim divorced woman is entitled to institute the proceeding for recovery of arrears of allowance for maintenance u/s. 125 (3) or 127 of Cr. P. C. in respect of the order of maintenance passed u/s. 125 (1) (a) Cr. P. C. prior to the enforcement of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Dirovce) Act, 1986? (iii) Whether a non-divorced Muslim Woman is entitled to continue the proceedings u/s. 125 (1) (a) Cr. P. C. instituted after the enforcement of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, if during the pendency of the said proceedings, she is divorced by her husband simply to avoid the liability of maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure? and, (iv) What decision has to be followed by the subordinate Courts in case of conflicting decisions of the Benches consisting of same number of Judges on the same point of Law?

( 2 ) THE first question is referred by a Single Bench of this Court in M. Cr. C. No. 1527/1988, while the remaining questions are referred under a Reference (No. 1/2000) made by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar. Other matters (M. Cr. C. Nos. 1733/1988, 153/1989, 2001/1990, 1326/1992 and 2141/1993), have been referred by the Division Bench of this Court. Although no specific question as such is formulated by the Division Bench while referring these five matters, however, decision of these cases would also depend on the answers to the questions already extracted hereinabove.

( 3 ) WE have heard learned counsel for parties; Shri Girish Desai, learned Dy. Advocate General; as also learned senior counsel Shri H. S. Uberoi, Shri B. L. Pavecha and Shri Jaisingh, who addressed the Court at our request.

( 4 ) TAKING the last question (No. iv) first, at the outset it may be stated that the answer to this question is contained in a recent Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jabalpur Bus Operators' Association v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2003) 1 Jab LJ 105 : (AIR 2003 Madh Pra 81), wherein it is held :"with regard to High Court, a Single Bench is bound by the decision of another Single Bench. In case he does not agree with the view of other Single Bench, he should refer the matter to Larger Bench. Similarly, Division Bench is bound by the judgment of earlier Division Bench. In case it does not agree with the view of the earlier Division Bench, it should refer the matter to Larger Bench. In case of conflict between the judgments of two Division Benches of equal strength, the decision of earlier Division Bench shall be followed except when it is explained by the latter Division Bench in which case the decision of latter Division Bench shall be binding. The decision of Larger Bench is binding on smaller Benches". Needless to say that what is said about the decisions of Division Bench shall also apply in case of conflict between judgments of two Single Benches. So in case of conflict between two decisions of the High Court rendered by the Benches of equal strength (be it a Full Bench, Division Bench or Single Bench), the decision earlier in time shall hold the field unless it is referred and explained in the latter decision in which case the latter one shall be binding. The question No. (iv), thus, stands answered accordingly.

( 5 ) ANSWERS to other questions (No. i to iii) depend o