ORDER Rajeshwari Prasad, J. - This is a petition in revision by one Shri Gappu Khan. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Faridpur, district Bareilly, by his order dated 14-7-1965 in proceedings u/s 488 Code of Criminal Procedure directed that the Petitioner should pay the sum of Rs. 50/- and Rs. 25/- per month to his wife and to his daughter by way of maintenance. The Petitioner was dissatisfied with that order of the learned Magistrate and he filed a petition in revision before the Sessions Judge, Bareilly. The learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly dismissed that revision petition on the 1st October, 1965 on the ground that the only questions that were sought to be urged before him related to findings of fact recorded by the learned Magistrate, consequently, no interference in revision was called for, by him. 2. In support of the revision petition in this Court, it has been urged on behalf of the revisionist that in his written statement filed before the learned Magistrate, he had clearly indicated that sometime ago he had divorced the wife in the presence of witnesses. It may be, that the courts below on evidence have come to the conclusion, that it had not been proved that twelve years prior to the date of the written statements, the Petitioner had divorced his wife, but what is urged before me is, that this acknowledgment, of divorce by the husband in the written statement itself, in law, would have the effect of bringing about divorce from the date of that acknowledgment. In this view of matter, it has been further urged that the wife could be entitled to maintenance only for the period of iddat which corresponds to three calendar months from the date of the divorce. 3. With regard to the claim of the daughter, it has been urged that it has not been proved that she is the really daughter of the Petitioner. It has been urged that receipt of the birth-register filed on behalf of the daughter was manipulated one and no reliance should have been placed on the same. It has also been urged that it was not admissible in evidence. The further grievance of the Petitioner is that the learned Sessions judge who was seized of the revision petition improperly refused to accept a document relating to the birth of the daughter, in evidence, which was sought to be tendered by the Petitioner. 4. It has also been urged that it was not admissible in evidence. The further grievance of the Petitioner is that the learned Sessions judge who was seized of the revision petition improperly refused to accept a document relating to the birth of the daughter, in evidence, which was sought to be tendered by the Petitioner. 4. So far as the question whether Kumari Rashidan is really the daughter of the Petitioner or not is concerned, I am of the view that that is the subject matter of the concurrent finding of fact, arrived at by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge. I am not entitled to question that finding so long as it is shown to be based upon some evidence by those courts. I am not in agreement with the Learned Counsel for the revisionist that that document was inadmissible in evidence. It is a part of receipt which had to be maintained by the Gram Panchayat under the rules and bears the seal and signature of the authorities of that Gram Panchayat. If this is so, then no formal proof of the document was necessary and document certainly is admissible in evidence. Neither the learned Magistrate nor the learned Sessions Judge was satisfied with the contention made on behalf of the Petitioner that the receipt was a faked receipt said to have been issued by Gram Panchayat which did not exist in fact. I, therefore, hold that Kumari Rashidan being the daughter of the Petitioner is entitled to appropriate maintenance allowance. The amount fixed by the courts below so far as the daughter is concerned is Rs. 25/- per month. There is some evidence on the record to show that the Petitioner is possessed of substantial landed property. On the materials on the record, the learned Magistrate thought it appropriate to fix the sum of Rs. 25/- per month as maintenance allowance for the daughter. I do not feel that I am called upon to interfere with that finding which again is a finding of fact. 5. So far as the claim of Shrimati Hashmati is concerned, I think that the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner must be accepted. 25/- per month as maintenance allowance for the daughter. I do not feel that I am called upon to interfere with that finding which again is a finding of fact. 5. So far as the claim of Shrimati Hashmati is concerned, I think that the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner must be accepted. It is true, there is no evidence on the record to indicate that the parties to the dispute are sunnis and are governed by Hanafi School of Mohammadan Law, but in the absence of evidence, a presumption is to be drawn that the parties are sunnis and are governed by Hanafi School of Mohammadan Law. This view finds support from the decision in the case of Mt. Jamilunnissa v. Sheikh Mohammad Zia 1937 AWR 430. I must, therefore, assume that the parties to this case are governed by Hanafi School of Mohammadan Law. Law relating to divorce is not so stringent under the Hanafi law as it is for the shias. Under the Hanafi law, no specific form or formality is necessary to bring about a divorce, nor are, any conditions needed, in order to validate a declaration of the intention by the husband to divorce his wife. This being so, the averments made in paragraph 2 of the written statement of the Petitioner would in law be deemed to be a declaration of intention to divorce the wife. In support of the proposition that even in the absence of proof of actual divorce alleged to have been made many years prior to the date of filing of that written statement, the acknowledgement of divorce in the written statement itself would amount to bringing about divorce as from that date, reliance has been placed on the case of Chandbi Ex Vs. Bandesha, AIR 1961 Bom 121 . Their Lordships of the Bombay High Court undoubtedly took a view to that effect, and in doing so, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Asamatullah v. Khatun Unnisa and Ors. 1939 AWR 493 (HC) . The case decided by this Court is a Division Bench one, and sitting singly, I am bound by it. It must, therefore, be held that the averments in the written statement made by the Petitioner effected a divorce of the wife from the date of that written statement. 1939 AWR 493 (HC) . The case decided by this Court is a Division Bench one, and sitting singly, I am bound by it. It must, therefore, be held that the averments in the written statement made by the Petitioner effected a divorce of the wife from the date of that written statement. The husband under this condition was, however, bound to pay maintenance to the divorced wife for the period of iddat. The claim of Srimati Hushmati, therefore, should have been allowed to that extent only. 6. It has been urged on behalf of the opposite party that such a point was not urged either before the learned Magistrate or before the learned Sessions Judge and that, therefore, this Court should not entertain the same. The point, as has been indicated above, and which is urged before the, is one of law and not of fact. The submission is that on the materials on the record, divorce stands established in law. I am, therefore, of the view that this legal consequence cannot be averted by the consideration of the fact that such a plea was not raised earlier either before the trial Magistrate or the learned Sessions Judge. 7. In the view that I have taken, the revision petition must be allowed in part. 8. The revision petition is partly allowed. The claim of the wife for maintenance allowance against the Petitioner for a period of three months is upheld. The rest of her claim is dismissed. As regards, Kumari Rashidan, the daughter of the Petitioner claim for her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month allowed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge is maintained. Revision partly allowed.