(1.) These two revisions, being connected matters are taken up together, and are disposed of by this common order. Criminal Revision No. 186/1994 shall be the leading case.
(2.) This revision is filed against the order dated 18th of July, 1994 passed by the Sessions Judge of Shivpuri, whereby the order of the learned trial Magistrate granting maintenance to the petitioner was set aside. The learned Sessions Judge held that the applications u/Secs. 125(3), 127 and 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) were not maintainable in view of the retrospective effect of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter, referred to as the Act).
(3.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to the non-petitioner on 22.7.68 in accordance with the customs of Sunni Muslim at Kolaras in the district of Shivpuri. The non-petitioner had divorced the petitioner on 8.9.91. Thereafter, the petitioner had moved an application u/Sec. 125 of the Code before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kolaras. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 15.9.83 allowed the application and granted maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.100/- per month from the date of the application. The non-petitioner had preferred a revision against that order which was numbered as Cr. R. No. 43/83 and the then learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision and confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate on 5.9.84. The petitioner thereafter filed two applications on 6.2.92 before the learned Magistrate, one for realisation of the maintenance already granted and the other for enhancement of the rate of maintenance allowed earlier. These two applications were heard by the learned Magistrate after giving notice to the non-petitioner. The plea taken at that time was that after passing of the Act, no application u/Secs. 125, 127 or 128 the Code could be entertained by any Magistrate.