JUDGMENT S.K. Kaul, J 1. This reference has been made by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, with a prayer that the order of the City Magistrate be modified in this way that instead of Rs. 1800/- a sum of Rs. 210/- as arrears of maintenance be ordered to be recovered from the applicant. 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are that Smt. Mukhtari Begum was married to Baboo alias Akbar Husain. She filed an application u/s 488, Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance. That case was contested by Baboo alias Akbar Husain, and ultimately, her application was allowed on 18th April, 1968, by the Magistrate concerned who directed that a sum of Rs. 30/- as maintenance would be payable from the husband to the wife. It appears that on 24th of May, 1973, Smt. Mukhtari Bagum moved an application in the Court of the Magistrate with a prayer for issue of a warrant for realisation of Rs. 1800/- inasmuch as not a single penny was paid to her from the date of the order up to the date of the application. When notice was issued to the husband, he filed an objection on 6th July, 1973, raising two points. The first point was that he had divorced Smt. Mukhtari Begum on 1st January, 1972. The second point was that demand for more than a year regarding maintenance amount was barred by Proviso no. 2 to sub-section (3) of Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure on account of limitation. The City Magistrate repelled both these contentions, and ordered that a sum of Rs. 1800/- be realised from Baboo for payment to Smt. Mukhtari Begum. Against that order, Baboo went up in revision. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the Magistrate rightly came to the conclusion that divorce was not proved as having been given with effect from 1st January, 1972, but on the basis of a ruling of this Court reported in Sattar Sheikh v. Mst. Sahdunnisa 1969 ALJ 415, he came to this conclusion that divorce should be deemed to have been given by Baboo to Smt. Mukhtari Begum on 6th July, 1973 when he filed objection in which he mentioned that he had divorced Smt. Mukhtari Begum. On the question of quantum of maintenance, he held that on account of limitation provided in Proviso no. On the question of quantum of maintenance, he held that on account of limitation provided in Proviso no. 2 to sub section (3) of Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, the maintenance amount for more than a year is barred by limitation and, as such, Smt. Mukhtari Begum could be allowed maintenance amount with effect from 24th May, 1972. To this period, he added the date of the divorce, namely, 6th July, 1973, and further added a period of 4 months and 10 days as period of Iddat. At the rate of Rs. 30/- he held that the amount of maintenance payable to Smt. Mukhtari Begum would be only Rs. 210/- and consequently he made a reference for modification of the order passed by the City Magistrate. 3. I agree that divorce with effect from 1st January, 1972, was not proved in this case and that the date of divorce would be the date of filing of objection by Baboo which was 6th July, 1973. I with respect, agree with the ruling quoted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, namely 1969 ALJ 415 (supra). This very point was involved in the case noted above, and after discussion of various rulings and books on Mohammedan Law, Mahesh Chandra, J. observed that : It is thus clear that no particular form or words are necessary for the divorce to take effect. What is important is that if the divorce or the acknowledgment of divorce is in non-customary form it should be manifest and the intention of the person must be clear and defined. There can be no doubt that the intention of the Appellant in the written statement was defined and clear regarding the repudiation or divorce. The divorce would, therefore, take effect not from the date when it is alleged to have been pronounced, but from the date when it was so acknowledged in the written statement. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was also correct when he held that maintenance amount prior to 24th May, 1972, could not be granted inas much as Section 488, sub-section (3) proviso 2 lays down that : (2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, if so ordered from the date of the application for maintenance. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was also correct when he held that maintenance amount prior to 24th May, 1972, could not be granted inas much as Section 488, sub-section (3) proviso 2 lays down that : (2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, if so ordered from the date of the application for maintenance. Provided, further, that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. 5. The maintenance amount be comes due every month. The maintenance amount was granted in the year 1968, but the same was not claimed. The first claim was made on 24th May, 1973, and, as such, the lady can be allowed maintenance only from 24th May, 1972. She will get maintenance up-till 6th July, 1973, which is the date on which divorce would be deemed to have taken effect. To this period will be added the period of Iddat, but once again I find that apart from arithmetical error done by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he has computed wrong period of Iddat. According to Principles of Mohammedan Law by Mulla in Seventeenth Edition, Iddat is observed by a wife in two contingencies, namely, firstly, when the marriage is dissloved by divorce and, secondly, when the husband dies. It is only when the husband dies that the duration is of four months and ten days. In this case, Baboo is very much alive. The period of Iddat for divorce is that if the woman is subject to menstruation, it is three courses and if she is not so subject, it is three lunar months. In this case Smt. Mukhtari Begum is a young lady and the age given by her was 20 years. Obviously, she is subject to menstruation. That being so, the period of Iddat in this case would be three months and 13 days as was the period noted in the ruling quoted above, namely 1969 ALJ 415. In that case as well, Mahesh Chandra, J. allowed period of Iddat to be counted as three months and 13 days. Thus, in all, maintenance period would come to from 24th of May, 1972, to 19th October, 1973. In that case as well, Mahesh Chandra, J. allowed period of Iddat to be counted as three months and 13 days. Thus, in all, maintenance period would come to from 24th of May, 1972, to 19th October, 1973. For this period, maintenance amount at the rate of Rs. 30/-per month would come to Rs. 540/-. 6. The reference is partly accepted. The order of the City Magistrate is modified to this extent that Smt. Mukhtari Begum is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 540/- from Baboo alias Akbar Husain.