( 1. ) THIS criminal revision is directed against the order dated 9. 8. 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Agar in Cr. Revision No. 52/2000 arising out of the order passed on 21. 1. 2000 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Susner in Cr. Case No. 45/1997 thereby rejecting the application filed Under Section 127 (3) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) filed by the non-applicant Shajad for cancellation of the order of maintenance. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, while allowing the revision, set aside the order of the JMFC and allowed the application made Under Section 127 (3) (b) of the Code.

( 2. ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that since the order of maintenance was passed in favour of the non-applicant Raisabee Under Section 125 of the Code by order dated 28. 1. 1985, now the same cannot be set aside under the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Muslim Women Act for short) and she is entitled for receiving the maintenance as per order dated 28. 1. 1985. Learned Counsel has relied on a Division Bench decision passed in Munni Begum v. Abdul Sattar, 2001 (1) MPJR 144.

( 3. ) BRIEF facts of the case are as under: That, in the year 1984, the non-applicant Raisabee filed an application Under Section 125 of the Code for grant of maintenance against the non-applicant-husband Shajad. This application was finally decided by order dated 28. 1. 1985 in favour of the wife directing the husband to pay maintenance @ Rs. 200/- per month. On 10. 9. 1997, the applicant Shajad submitted an application Under Section 127 (3) (b) of the Code on the ground that in accordance with the Muslim custom on 12. 8. 1997, he divorced his wife by verbal declaration as well as in writing and also sent the Talaknama by Registered Post. He also submitted that in execution proceedings of maintenance amount he has deposited the settled Mehar amount of Rs. 500/- and maintenance amount of Iddat period. Now since he had divorced his wife and also deposited the Mehar amount and maintenance amount for Iddat period, the wife would not be entitled to recover maintenance amount in pursuance of the order passed by the Court below on 28. 1. 1985.

( 4. ) THE non-applicant corttesied the application Under Section 127 (3) (b) of the Code filed by the husband denying the factum of divorce. She has also denied the receipt of Talaknama. She contended that even in Muslim Women Act, the divorced wife is entitled for maintenance. The learned Trial Court, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the application Under Section 127 (3)

(b) of the Code of the non-applicant-husband Shajad having held that the Talaknama was not duly received by the wife and she was also not legally divorced by the verbal declaration or in writing. Against this order, the husband went up in revision. The learned Revisional Court allowed the revision filed by the non-applicant-husband having held that the written intimation dated 12. 8. 1997 was duly sent by Registered Post to the applicant-wife and the same must have been received by her. The envelope (Ex. P/l) and Talaknama (Ex. P/3) have been duly proved. He has examined Mohd. Salim (A. W. 2) to prove his signature. This witness has testified in the Court that before him, the husband had given divorce to his wife. The Registered-postal-envelope (Ex. P/l) returned back with an endorsement that the applicant-wife refused to take the same. Therefore, the same was returned back. The learned Revisional Court has relied on the statement of the husband Shajad and his witness Mohd. Salim and the document Ex. P/l for the purposes of divorce given by the non-applicant to the applicant. There appears no irregularity, illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Revisional Court in arriving at the finding that the non-applicant-husband had given divorce to the applicant-wife on 12. 8. 1997 by oral declaratio