IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2381 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2381 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2381 OF 2007 Irfan Mohd. Usman Momin .... Petitioner versus Farida Iqbal Ansari ...... Respondent. Mr. Girish G.Togani for the petiitoner Mr. A.S.Shitole APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. The petitioner and the respondent no.1 were married in the year 2000. The respondent no.2 the daughter is born out of the marital wedlock. In December 2002 the petitioner divorced the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 filed an application for herself and on behalf of the respondent no.2, minor child, for maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. contending that she is unable to maintain herself and thus claimed maintenance. During the trial it was noticed that the application moved under section 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondent no.1 divorced wife was not maintainable. Relying on a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in (2000)4 All MR 258, 000)4 All MR 258, 000)4 All MR 258, the respondent no.1 moved an application for treating the application filed by her under section 125 Cr.P.C. as the one filed under sections 3 and 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986. Perusal of the Full Bench judgment clearly reveals that Magistrate who is empowered to try an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. is also competent to adjudicate the application moved by Muslim Women under section 3(a) of the Act. Thus, there was no impediment in permitting conversion of the application under section 125 into an application under sections 3 and 4 of Muslim Women Act. The trial court rejected the application moved by the respondent no.1 seeking maintenance under Muslim Women Act to the extent it relates to respondent no.1. However directed payment of maintenance to respondent no.2 child in the sum of Sr.700/- per month. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court, declining to consider the application moved by respondent no.1 as the one filed under sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women Act, preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions court allowing the revision, has set aside the order passed by the trial court to the extent it relates to the respondent no.1. while disposing of the application at Exh. 79, whereunder the respondent no.1 wife claimed maintenance in the sum of Rs.3 lakhs, the revisional court has directed the trial court to allow the parties to lead additional evidence if they so desire. It is thus clear that by allowing the revision, no prejudice is caused to the present petitioner in as much as the respondent no.1 wife could have filed a fresh application under sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women Act. With a view to avoid duplication of recording of evidence and total gamut of procedure to be followed once again, the revisional court has permitted the adjudication of the claim made by the respondent no.1 vide Exh.79. As parties are given liberty to lead fresh evidence if they so desire, it protects the interests of both the parties, and the petitioner shall have an opportunity to rebut the case of respondent no.1 claiming maintenance vide Exh.79. In this view of the matter no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is called for. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. ...