Judgment :- 1. This appeal is filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge at Nagapattinam passed in O.P. No. 31 of 1979, dismissing the application for the issue of succession certificate by a wife against whom an irrevocable Thalak had been pronounced by the husband during his life time. 2. The petitioner in the application for the issue of succession certificate is the wife and it is in respect of the assets of her former husband. Certain dates may be relevant. The marriage took place between the petitioner and her husband B.S. Rahimansa on 28th May, 1975. The said B.S. Rahimansa was a bill collector in Fallavan Transport Corporation. She admits that Thalak was pronounced on 20th February, 1977. According to law, the period of Iddath begins from the date of Thalak, namely, 20th February, 1977 and extends for a period of four months and ten days. The husband died in an accident on 30th March, 1977, evidently, during the period of Iddath. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that Thalak had been pronounced in Badai mode and as such it is irrevocable and, hence, the petitioner is not the heir of the deceased Rahimansa Consequently, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the application for the issue of succession certificate. This appeal is filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge. 3. Mr. Raghupathy, learned advocate for the appellant, contends that a Muslim wife is entitled to succeed to the estate of her husband, if the husband dies during the period of Iddath, In support of this proposition, he has produced a certificate issued by the Chief Khazi Syed Shah Mohamed Ali Anhu, Government Khazi, Madras 14, to the effect that when the husband dies during the period of Iddath the divorced wife gets a share in the Properties of the husband. This certificate will not have, force of law unless there is provision in the Mohammadan law to the effect if the husband died during the period of Iddath the divorced wife is an heir of her husband and the appellant is ( sic ) entitled to succeed. The learned advocate for the appellant is not able to point out any provision of Mohammadan Law, whereby it is laid down that in case the husband dies during the period of Iddath, the divorced wife is an heir to the estate of her husband. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant is not able to point out any provision of Mohammadan Law, whereby it is laid down that in case the husband dies during the period of Iddath, the divorced wife is an heir to the estate of her husband. 4. On behalf of the appellant a case reported in Mohammed Shamsuddin v. Noor Jahan Begum 1, is relied on in support of her case wherein the following observation is made:— “A Division Bench of this Court in 33 Deccan, L.R. 134(E) held that owing to various incidences, the marriage tie itself should be deemed to have been extended for the period of Iddath.” Relying on this observation, it is contended that if the husband died during the period of Iddath, the divorced wife is an heir in law. On a perusal of the facts of the above case, it is seen that the claim is in respect of maintenance. The observation in 33 Deccan L.R. 134(E) extracted above is found in the judgment. The observation only refers to the basis of the right to maintenance available to a divorced wife and the said observation cannot in any event be an authority for the proposition that a divorced wife is an heir to an estate of the husband dying before the expiration of the period of Iddath. Hence, there are no merits in this appeal and the conclusion arrived at by the lower court is correct. Hence, this civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.