- (1.) J. C. Mishra, J. Learned counsel for the opposite party was not present though the list was revised. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.
(2.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 8-3-1991 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Fatehpur in Criminal Case No. 90 of 1990 rejecting the applica tion under Section 127 Cr. P. C. The facts necessary for disposal of this revision are thus: Smt. Seema filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. claiming main tenance allowance for herself and her daughter Km. Farhat. The application was allowed. Dissatisfied with the amount of maintenance she preferred a revision which was decided on 21st March, 1987. The order passed by the Magistrate was modified and she was awarded Rs. 300/- as maintenance allowance for herself and Rs. 200/- as maintenance allowance for her daughter per month. Subsequently, the revisionist Mohd. Ahmad filed an application under Section 127 Cr. P. C. for cancelling the order of maintenance on the ground that he has divorced his wife on 16th May, 1988. Therefore, he was not liable to pay the maintenance with effect from the date of divorce. The learned Magistrate rejected the application. Felt aggrieved he preferred this revision.
(3.) THE revisionist challenged the order on the ground that after coming into force of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 a husband is not liable to pay maintenance allowance to his divorced wife. Hon'ble N. B. Asthana, J. , who heard the revision referred the question to Division Bench in view of the conflicting decisions of this Court. The reference came for hearing before the Division Bench presided over by Hon'ble B. M. Lai, J. and Hon'ble S. N. Saxena, J. In view of the decision of the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Smt. Hamidan v. Mohd. Rafiq, 1993 (11) LCD 226 the Bench held that the right to receive the maintenance allowance cannot be restricted to the period of Iddat only in the case of a divorced woman. With this answer this matter again came up before this Bench.;