Judgment Surinder Sarup, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 8.9.1988 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, whereby he rejected the petitioners petition dated 17.8.1988, which was filed for dropping the proceeding on the basis of "The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Opposite Party Amna Khatoon applied for maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner which ended in a compromise by order dated 5.7.1983 as a result of which she became ready to live with the petitioner; copy of that order dated 5.7.1983 is Annexure-1. 3. The compromise did not prove to be a lasting one. Therefore, the said Opposite Party again moved the Court for an order of payment of Rs. 250.00 per month towards her maintenance and an order was made for deposit of Rs. 350.00 by way of maintenance of the said Opposite Party by the petitioner and the petitioner complied with the order on 14.7.1988. But inspite of the consent given in the Court that the said Opposite Party will go alongwith the petitioner to his house, she flatly refused to go with the petitioner to her matrimonial home, which ended in divorce on the very same day. The petitioner also sent a registered letter dated 15.7.1988 whereby he informed her about the divorce and this letter was received by her on 19.7.1988 as per the Acknowledgement receipt, Annexure-2 to the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner sent Rs. 860.00 as her expenses till Iddat to the Opposite Party through postal money order and Rs. 232.00 the amount of Dan Mehar by separate money order. However, she refused to receive the same. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the Court for dropping the proceedings as aforesaid. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited a decision reported in A.I.R. 1990, Andhra Pradesh 225, which is Full Bench judgment. It has been laid down that a divorced Muslim woman cannot claim maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from her former husband after passing of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. It has further been laid down that the liability of Muslim husband to pay reasonable and fair provision and maintenance is limited only for and during the period of Iddat. 5. It has further been laid down that the liability of Muslim husband to pay reasonable and fair provision and maintenance is limited only for and during the period of Iddat. 5. In view of this authority, the impugned order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, on 8.9.1988 is illegal and has to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, revision petition is allowed and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, dated 8.9.1988 passed in Misc. Case No. 25 of 1988 is set aside.