B. M. LAL, J. ( 1 ) NON-APPLICANT Mst. Gulshan Begam brought an action under S. 125, Code of Criminal Procedure against her husband, applicant herein, claiming maintenance for herself and for her minor son Mohd. Safar Khan, aged about 7 years, before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kawardha in Misc. Criminal Case No. 69 of 1989. ( 2 ) MST. Gulshan Begam non-applicant No. 1, averred that she was married to applicant Mohd. Umar Khan some time in 1981 and out of their wed-lock, Mohd. Safar Khan was born. However, she further averred that she was being ill-treated by her husband, applicant herein, and also that her husband contracted the second, marriage. On these grounds, the application under S. 125, Cr. P. C. was made. ( 3 ) AFTER receipt of the notice, the applicant/husband emerged with the plea that in December, 1983, he had divorced the non- applicant No. 1, Mst. Gulshan Begam and thereafter in the month of July 1984, at the request of relatives of the wife (non-applicant No. 1), he had further divorced her in writing. ( 4 ) NON-APPLICANT No. 1 wife requested the trial Court for grant of interim maintenance. However, the husband opposed this submission and contended that the application as made and filed under S. 125, Cr. P. C. , is not maintainable in view of the Act No. 25 of 1986 namely Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, in short the Act of 1986. The learned trial Court, by the impugned order, awarded Rs. 400/- per month as interim maintenance against which this revision is filed. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the applicant vehemently contended that in view of the provisions of S. 5 of the Act of 1986, the present application by the wife for maintenance is not maintainable. Section 5 of the Act of 1986 reads as under:"section 5 : Option to be governed by the provisions of Ss. 125 to 128 of Act 2 of 1974 -If, on the date of the first hearing of the application under sub-section (2) of S. 3, a divorced woman and her former husband declare, by affidavit or any other declaration in writing in such form as may be prescribed, either jointly or separately that they would prefer to be governed by the provisions of Ss. 125 to 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), and file such affidavit or declaration in the Court hearing the application, the Magistrate shall dispose of such application accordingly. Explanation : For purposes of this section 'date of the first hearing of the application' means the date fixed in the summons for the attendance of the respondent to the application," ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, the applicant husband has not declared by any affidavit or any other declaration in writing in such form as may be prescribed, whether jointly or separately, that they would prefer to be governed by Ss. 125 to 128, Cr. P. C. This being so, the submission made has some force. However, Shri Usrnani, learned counsel for the non-applicants con- tended that whether Talak had taken place or not, is required to be proved by evidence. Section 310 of the Mahomedan Law -deals about Talaks according to which Talak amongst Mahomedans may be oral or in writing. This provision of the Mahomedan Law reads as under"sec. 310 : Talak may be oral or in writing- a Talak may be effected (1) orally (by spoken words) or (2) by a written document called a talaknama. "in view of this provision, no evidence is required to prove Talak as the divorce by husband is complete just by utterance of words 'talak, Talak, Talak' thrice and the presence of a third person is not necessary. In this view of the matter, there is, no option to the wife to challenge Talak. This being so, the application made and filed is not maintainable. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 25-9-1989 is quashed. Revision allowed. .