JUDGMENT V.N. Mehrotra, J. - This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6th July, 1988 by Sri O.P. Bansel, IIIrd Addl. District and Session Judge, Muzaffarnagar, in Criminal Revision No. 253 of 1987, Setting aside the judgment and order dated 30.11.1987 passed by Smt. Ranjana Pandey. First Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, awarding maintenance Rs. 250/- per month to the present applicant, Smt. Gulistan, from the date of application till 26.11.1927 which is the date of divorce. 2. The facts of the case are that Smt. Gulistan moved an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, against her husband Sabir who is the present opposite party No. 1 praying for grant of maintenance Rs. 500/- per month. She asserted that the opposite party, Sabir, had treated her with cruelty and had also turned her out from his house. She also alleged that the opposite party had refused to maintain her. According to her, the opposite party was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. The opposite party made the allegations about unchastity of the applicant in his written statement. He also denied that he was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. The learned Magistrate held that the opposite party was earning not less than 500/- per month in any case. It was also held that the applicant was unable to maintain herself and that she has sufficient reason to live separately from the husband. On these finding maintenance Rs. 250/- per month was awarded to the applicant from the date of application to 26.11.1987 as it was held that the opposite party No. 1 had divorced the applicant on 28.11.1987 during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. The husband, Sabir, filed a revision against the order by the learned Magistrate; that revision was allowed by order dated 6.7.1988 by the IIIrd Add. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar. In the present revision filed by Smt. Gulistan it has been asserted that the order by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was illegal and there was no reason for setting aside the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the opposite parties. The judgment by the learned IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge was illegal and there was no reason for setting aside the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the opposite parties. The judgment by the learned IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, dated 6th July, 1988 shows that he has not allowed the revision on merits but has allowed it merely on the ground that the learned Magistrate should have given reasons for allowing maintenance from the date of applicant and not from the date of order and as such reasons have not been furnished by him, his order was not valid. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has argued that as the husband had divorced the applicant during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Magistrate could not have directed him to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr P.C., as the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 become applicable in this case. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant, has however, argued that as the application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, was filed before the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was enforced and as the opposite party had divorced the applicant after the enforcement of that Act, the applicant would be entitled to get maintenance from the opposite party upto the date of divorce, though not after that under the provisions of Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. Reference may be made to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act which provides that: "Even application by a divorced woman under Section 125 or under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Pending before a Magistrate on the commencement of this Act, Shall, notwithstanding anything contained in that Code and subject to the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, be disposed of by such Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of this Act." 6. In the present case the applicant was not a divorced woman when she moved an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. She was also not a divorced woman when the Act came into force. She was divorced by her husband on 26.11.1987 i.e. after the Act came into force. In the present case the applicant was not a divorced woman when she moved an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. She was also not a divorced woman when the Act came into force. She was divorced by her husband on 26.11.1987 i.e. after the Act came into force. In view of these facts the provisions of Section 7 of the Act will not be applicable to the present case and the learned Magistrate would have continued the proceeding under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code as far as the matter related to the period prior to the date of divorce. This matter came for consideration in the case Ghulam Sabir v. Rayeesa Begum and another 1988 A.L.J. 873. decided by V.P. Mathur, J. It was held that if it is not established that the wife was divorced prior to the date of enforcement of the Act, then she will be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, upto the date of divorce as the Act was not retrospective in effect. I fully agree with the observation of Mathur, J. in that case. 7. In the present case the opposite party, husband, divorced the applicant after the Act was enforced so the wife was entitled to get the maintenance upto the date of divorce under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. It was due to this reason that the learned Magistrate rightly allowed maintenance upto the date of divorce i.e. upto 26.11.1987. It is obvious that in view of the fact that the learned Magistrate could not have awarded maintenance for the period after 26.11.1987 i.e. after the divorce by the husband. She has confined the grant of maintenance from the date of application, which appears to have been moved some time in the year 1986, to the date of divorce. The reason for allowing maintenance from the date of application was very clear and obvious. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, however, mechanically observed that the learned Magistrate should have given reasons for granting divorce from the date of application and not from the date of order. He apparently ignored the fact that the learned Magistrate could not have granted maintenance under Section 126 Criminal Procedure Code, from the date of order i.e. from 30.11.1987 as the husband had divorced the wife on.26.11.1987. The order by the learned Addl. He apparently ignored the fact that the learned Magistrate could not have granted maintenance under Section 126 Criminal Procedure Code, from the date of order i.e. from 30.11.1987 as the husband had divorced the wife on.26.11.1987. The order by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was, under the circumstances, unjust and improper. There was no reason for him for setting aside the order by the learned Magistrate granting maintenance to the applicant from the date of application to the date of divorce. This revision should, therefore, be allowed. 8. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order dated 6th July, 1988 by the IIIrd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, is set aside. The order dated 30.11.1987 by the learned Magistrate granting maintenance to the applicant @250/- per month is restored.